Buzz Aldrin Reveals Existence of Monolith on Mars Moon!!!

The monolith is just another boring rock formation, like the 'face' on Mars. Certainly not worth spending billions of dollars to prove it. If anyone wants to spend money chasing aliens, then do it here on Earth. Send a manned exploration mission into Area 51; or dig under Cheops pyramid to find what was buried beneath it; or put up 'civilian' satellites that can detect and track ufo's flying anywhere on Earth, and feed data straight to the internet; etc.

When astronomers locate a planet with water and a breathable atmosphere, and when NASA uses anti-gravity and warpdrive... then we can consider 'manned' exploration of space.

"The Universe put it there"

But dare I ask, Which Part of the Universe "put" it there?

It's clear that until we know better what it is, both sides will be aguring until we're blue in the face.

Whatever it is, once we get a closer look at it, find out what it's made of and how it got there, or how it formed on Phobos, we'll learn something new, even if it is just a natural formation.

[edit on 24-7-2009 by Junkheap]

Originally posted by Electro38
I think NASA stays away from Phobos because they already know what's there. They don't want the bible belt of the US going ape #. Look at what happened after our first Black president. All of a sudden we have these redneck states that don't want to be part of the USA anymore!

In the US, it has become a crime to put up a cross, or to take one down, or to proclaim atheism. We walk a very fine and very wasteful line here in the US. A lot of people don't care about the truth, they'd rather waste a lot of time with semantics, rhetoric and tax money fighting battles in court over some 12 commandments statue, or the exact size requirements for a cross on someones house in the middle of bum# USA.

If there's one thing keeping us from leaning the truth it's religion. Namely Roman Catholicism. (I was born and raised as such, until learning about history. A long history of suppressing knowledge and the truth, murdering women and scientists, etc.)

The CIA knows exactly what's going on, but they lie to the Pres, congress and people.

(Just my humble opinions)

[edit on 23-7-2009 by Electro38]

First, take a quick step back for a moment. You are using dicrimination to define your distaste for discrimination.

Second, where is the proof that the rock formation on Phobos is in fact a monolith?

I think Buzz is trying to play on everyone' curiosity and intrest. Even though the monolith could just be a rock, he is using it to spark everyone's imagination.

"Hi! My name is Buzz Aldrin, I'm famous for sitting in the passenger seat whilst my mate landed our spaceship on the moon 40 years ago, ohhh and I'm 79 years old and my grand kids really wanna go to college, I could do with the publicity"

I'm sorry, but people like Buzz coming forward 40 years after the event as an OAP only put a negative light on the UFO discussion....Christ, at 79 I bet he struggles to remember where the toilet is, nevermind what he did or didn't see on the moon, that may or may not have been a big rock, 40 years ago!

Having said that the first 3 words I'd use to describe him are; pioneer, legend and brave.

Cheers

Robbie

reply to post by spikey


No Spikey, I totally agree with you!
You're not alone (no pun intended)

what i don't understand is this:

There was a supposed cold war between russia and the usa and yet:

- the apollo soyuz mission occurred in the middle of the cold war?
-the russian shuttle is virtually the same as the american one (shared IP?)
- Both russia and america were allies during ww2 and both divided the spoils of the fallen nazi empire including all rocketry equipment and scientists.

is alternative 3 mostly correct?

It seems to me that he would really like to see public excitement in space exploration again as it was back during the Apollo 11 mission.
It seems to me as he was just stumbling over his own words, not because he was trying to hide something, and was a little embarrassed about doing so, but continued on.
I don’t see anything that would indicate that he was indicating anything other than it would be an interesting object to go take a look at.
I do not have proof but I would think that an object standing by itself on an otherwise flat area would be interesting to him or any other geologist, just to find why it alone is there, what it is composed of, etc.

"There are great ideas, undiscovered breakthroughs available, to those who can remove one of truths protective layers" -Neil Armstrong, 'First Man on the Moon'. July 20 th 1994

jayweidner.com...

Please, please take the time to read this article. It is very, very interesting. It is not an article about NOT landing on the moon, as we may have but without the rockets we have seen, but an article that clearly proves that the photo's and videos of the surface of the moon were faked. It is extensive work and the author is an expert in the field of photography and video production, a filmmaker.

So please take the time to read it complete. I was up till 2 in the morning reviewing it.

And for those looking for the next false flag. Why would Stanley Kubrick start making a movie in 1966 about the year 2001? And what was the event that happened that year? What was the sequel to that movie?

Start a new thread because this is a great conspiracy theory. I am somewhat new here and do not know how to start a thread. Haven't looked into it really though.

I guess buzz is talking about this "potato-shaped" moonlet objects orbiting phobos...

reply to post by daddio

There are more than enough threads about the moon landing "hoax" and "faked" photos.


[edit on 7/24/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Debunkertrolls - they are to be pitied, not scorned.

Personally I say stuff em in a rocket and send them up there to see for themselves.. we need guinea pi... errr explorers

Originally posted by Phage
There are more than enough threads about the moon landing "hoax".

Nah always room for one more. Heck there are thousands of crop circle and I saw an alien in my bedroom threads, what harm at one more moon thread

Beside you have nothing better to do anyway so it will keep ya busy

Originally posted by stratsys-sws ohhh and I'm 79 years old and my grand kids really wanna go to college, I could do with the publicity"

You are aware that Buzz get $50,000.00 for a live appearance? I'm willing to bet you don't make that in a year

Originally posted by Exuberant1

What about a massive tower that rises above the lunar horizon?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6f28cc48766d.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/814d331f698b.jpg[/atsimg]


Would you say that this also a 'natural formation'?


What about a massive tower that rises above the Terran horizon?



Would you say that this also is a 'natural formation'?

Hmmm?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Would you say that this also a 'natural formation'?

No actually I would not consider that natural at all, especially since it does not appear in other views of the crater.

What about a massive tower that rises above the Terran horizon?

Ah Devils Tower Basalt columns Isn't that the place they have ET meetings? I love how you debunkers always try to use basalt columns and the hexagonal cleavage of that material to show examples of what we are 'most likely' seeing on the moon etc.

Of course if you had any real geological knowledge Herr pilot you would know that special conditions are required for basalt to form like that... and they don't exist on the moon



But heck keep it up... I am sure some will fall for your tactics

reply to post by zorgon

...special conditions are required for basalt to form like that...

I know, the Moon, she has been selenogically dead for billions of years, so any molten igneous-type rocks have long since solidified. Difference is, of course, the lack of environmental, i.e., wind and rain and snow erosion.

I am NOT 'debunking' anything, I just think that Exuberant's example, while interesting, was not convincing either way, given the apparent ease with which Mother Nature can surprise us, even here on our own planet. Showing a similar example was prudent, of course.

At least we have some sense of scale of Devil's Tower, since we can measure it exactly, and indirectly from the photos of the 'monolith' on Phobos. That 'tower' on the Moon? Hard to tell.



[edit on 24 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

That 'tower' on the Moon? Hard to tell.

Well you can find scale details at NASA on that Phobos thingy so it's not hard to measure it. What I find more interesting is the many paralel rows of crater chains almost like it was used for target practise

EDIT: Link to image! (sorry!)
ida.wr.usgs.gov...

You can see the HUGE object casting a shadow if you scroll down.

[edit on 24-7-2009 by Albastion]

Originally posted by daddio
It is extensive work and the author is an expert in the field of photography and video production, a filmmaker.

He may be an expert in photography and I, just an amateur and not even a good one, may be wrong, but I think that depth of field is not related to the size of the film, only to the construction of the lens and camera, and it's not a "rule of thumb"

The main rule of thumb in photography is that the larger the format of the film the less depth of field.