Richard C Hoagland predicts Moon Structure/Possible ET Disclosure in Weeks.

First of all nobody is addressing the fact that the LCROSS shepherding craft camera (the second spacecraft about to crash on the moon following the centaur rocket) goes all white way before it hits the lunar surface, maybe some 10 or 8 seconds prior touchdown. How much distance is that if it travels a little below 2 miles/second?
The effect visible is the same effect if we point a very bright source of light to a camera, either by a huge torchlight, a laser, or an powerful ammunition explosion, or the camera facing directly at an -+ 5 degrees directly centered on the sun, for some reasons, but we actually never witness the cameras changing angles. The camera keeps its functionality for some seconds but still transmits a white screen until it is supposedly crashed behind centaur below.

Now the evidence Hoagland tries to focus on is not the crater of impact or the absent dust plume, or any structure features from the video feed during the descend anywhere near that crater *, but a random picture in the infrared of another area of the moon, (that LCROSS took while orbiting the Moon prior to its alignment before the final course correction and descend) that was illuminated by what Hoagland claims as extra IR light which according to him shouldn't be there, and is expanding on a vast area on the moon near and around lunar region crater "Moscow Sea" which appears pretty much illuminated too beyond normal according to him.

* (the white screen could also be failed "special effects" designed by NASA to fool the viewer of an incoming dust plume that would actually damaged the cameras, which in this case they were never been able to use since other earth bound optical sources never confirmed a dust plume at least a huge one)

He will probably assert that this excessive IR light might be caught and processed sunlight from artificial crystalline like ruins from the moon surface. I do think that whatever evidence he is holding on will be on the theoretical interpretation of his claims rather than actual evidence.
NASA on the other hand might claim that it is plain sunlight hitting the lunar surface.
Here is the images he is referring to:
www.enterprisemission.com...

If it is plain sunlight, then Hoagland should look suspicious.
Is this an ongoing effort to discredit NASA while there can be no discrediting evidence at least at what evidence Hoagland chooses to ussualy focus on and fascinate the paranormal community with this stuff, that may actualy be a time bomb waiting to blow up at the paranormal researchers faces, since they might be caught claiming that the sunlight in the lunar surface made them see crystaline ruins.
Is Hoagland an agent of some kind?

Does NASA wants or even utilizes "agents" of the like in order to present supposed evidence that will only be laughed at at the future and totally dishearten independent researchers and in general discredit the whole paranormal investigation at anything NASA related in the future, BEFORE ACTUALLY NASA STARTS DELVING IN TO INTERESTING MATERIAL IN FUTURE MISSIONS, where there could be ample of evidence of artificiality in our solar systems moons and planets that NASA would be hard to hide and is very hard pressed by the PTB to hide them?

I smell a rat with BOTH NASA AND Hoagland for some reasons.

WHAT IF THESE TWO ACTUALLY WORK TOGETHER to create ploys to actually dishearten the average paranormal investigator all this time?
Letting the paranormal community slide with each "case evidence" and with each "disclosure" month after month, year after year in a bottomless pit of ridicule and scorn?
Where is the face on Mars?
Where are the moon structures?
Where is the evidence of artificiality of Saturn moons?

He never presented any sufficient data for this and he is not making any specific effort to do so anymore.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by spacebot]

Originally posted by spacebot


I smell a rat with BOTH NASA AND Hoagland for some reasons.

WHAT IF THESE TWO ACTUALLY WORK TOGETHER?

[edit on 18-10-2009 by spacebot]

I concur.

And Hoagland's latest 'paper' is nonsensical. I listened to his last interview and he didn't satisfy - and he completely ignored the anomalous flashing.

It seems he produced half a paper, in his site. Kind of "throw this in the mix" and see how it goes until produce the second one after it gets adjusted and tuned probably according to whatever element from his claims readers attention will be focused on IMO.

Have we been played by both NASA and such kind of people?
If somebody actually can find evidence to support this, then there is no doubt an orchestration is in the works for several of years to manipulate independent thought both scientific-investigative and non scientific.
But what if suspicious minds get suspicious enough and turn both against NASA official and Hoagland type unofficial evidence and just proceed on their own to investigate things?
I do respect Hoaglands work though, he seems like a bright individual and I have been following his claims since 1997 but after all these years we still stuck with no evidence and lots of ridicule and by no means I would feel that one can claim that is the ultimate authority of everything NASA anomalous, and people should not perceive individuals in this light. People should start thinking independent again. Collecting evidence from anywhere they can but do the thinking of their own.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by spacebot]

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by jar11

 

Hoagland is the man who stated temperature differences between the rim and inside part of craters were due to ET, when the reduced sunlight levels is the cause. Nobody really takes him seriously who has any knowledge in Astronomy and Physics. And not everyone are govt. agents either!

So he has a proven track record of providing crap from NASA photos, and if you are someone who looks at a photo and thinks a rock is a glass dome or a bridge, then you're only falling for pareidolia I'm afraid.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by john124]

Between pareidolia "making a hill out of a mole" type of research to impress the public and NASA style scientific hard stance total blindness (we don't see anything there we shouldn't suppose to see even when we started designing the mission parameters from behind our desks) there is a lot of grey area for someone to venture to. We seem to forget that Space is area that multimillionaire giant energy corporations might want to have a say at things. Space has new resources. New resources are always a game changer. IR images might be showing either shattered glass domes, simple sunlight illumination, OR another natural resource element that would behave a little bit different than what we used to expect because different conditions for its creation exist in space and different conditions exist in earth and we mostly know of elements of our own planet and really nothing of how elements are created and preserved or changed out there. I am not claiming anything and this is pure speculation but if we can speculate about seeing "pyramids" and "glass domes" we in the same manner should be able to speculate that we might see exotic underground natural resources, or rare radiation that was not supposed to be there, too.
Take your pick.
There is something in there for everyone, but for anything to come out in the open what is needed is an undivided public attention, unhindered by continuous hoaxes and ridicule.
What matters is what choices will we make and how seriously we take space exploration and taking in to account of every little bit of data that it is revealed to us and examining every possible angle and avenue of thought.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by spacebot]

by that infrared image,and what he points out with arrows as ir off the domes makes that dome pretty big,like it covers a quarter of the moon,if that blue line represents the dome.

Originally posted by sum-one
reply to post by genius/idoit

 

The high-five refusal that 'bismarcksea' is refering to is here at - 9:00.

www.youtube.com...

This was discussed a bit in another LCROSS thread. The one that Jim Oberg started, I think.

Yeah, if you watch the guy in the right with black clothing he is very telling about this little story unfolding there. At first he is aware of the irregular behavior from the "laptop guy" then leans to the other guy next to him and proceeds to maybe ask in a manner "what happened with this dude" and after they exchange some words, he kinds of hangs his head probably thinking something like "tough luck for this dude".
Any insight what these two people (shown bottom right and right) in the controls were their mission role and the laptop dude? The "laptop guy" judging by his age seemed like a scientist. Is he involved is some mission parameter? Also how many separate command centers exist deciding at the last minute about mission behavior for each mission parameter or what to reveal in the public data feeds exist for each NASA mission or at least for this one?

[edit on 18-10-2009 by spacebot]

reply to post by spacebot


I have thought about this very thing many times. It is disheartening everytime and wolf has been cried too many times and it makes people want to give up!

reply to post by spacebot


During those short moments where the infrared feed was on, I believe there is a possibility that NASA inadvertently enabled us to see an active geological process - and that is incompatible with the model of the moon that the public is given.
So even if the flashes we briefly saw were naturally caused, NASA would probably not tell us because of how inconsistent they are with the current public lunar model.

And if the pulses were not natural, NASA definitely would not tell us, especially if we are the ones who created them. It could very well be that the flashes/pulses were related to an aspect of the mission which the public has not been made aware of.



[edit on 18-10-2009 by Exuberant1]

im into it................

i really feel something BIG is about to happen for sure...

look at it this way...no one expected economy failure, but it happened, no one expected swine flu, it happened....

my point is...you cant always predict how things are going to unfold....

reply to Exuberant1


About the flashes...continuing repeating that they are real, don't make them true real, you should know this.

It looks much more as image glitches, simply because entire IR image have more or less pixel variations (flashes if you want), especially on boundaries.

More, the image is artificially colored, and , as i see, there are just a few colors available representing not temperatures itself, but entire RANGES of temperatures: purple, blue, green, yellow, red and some 2..3 variations of them. I would say roughly to be some about 10..15 levels of different colors, so different RANGES of temperatures. As a matter of exemplifying the principle, let's say that the intervals are color-coded as this:
-270 degree Celsius to -200 degree -> purple color
-200 to -170 -> blue color
-170 to -130 -> green color
- 130 to -100 -> yellow color
-100 to -80 -> red color
I repeat, this values are arbitrary, just for illustrating the principle.
So, the image is not a "24 bit color" if you know the term from photoshop, but only a POSTERIZED IMAGE, or if you want, a low dynamic range image.
And what happens with pixels where the temperature is just near the boundary of some two adjacent ranges? Well, deppending on the threshold, image noise and other variations, that pixel could appear on some range on in the other, so, could change it's color.
But this is only an instrument limit.
More the image appear to be pixelated, and a anti-aliased filter it seems to be applied, but also some sharpening is there.
So, before jumping to wild speculations, you MUST understand how the image is obtained, what are the limitations and only after to look for REAL anomalies. Otherwise, you could be just another image glitch hunter.



[edit on 18/10/09 by depthoffield]

well a lot of unexplained fishy things go around........

LunarTransient Phenomena (LTP) have been reported for at least 450 years. The events range from bright flashes, to reddish or bluish glows, to obscurations. Gaseous spectra and photometric measurements of the events have been obtained. Several theories have been offered as explanations for LTP, including residual volcanic activity or outgassing, bombardment by energetic particles, and piezoelectric effects. As the first set of digital multispectral images of the entire Moon, the Clementine data offer a unique opportunity to couple inferences of compositional relationships with lunar geomorphology in the regions of LTP. We have selected 11 regions from which numerous reliable historical reports of LTP exist. Our analysis of the Clementine multispectral images shows that many events occur in regions of bright, spectrally reddish deposits, which may be characteristic of volcanic ejecta. The events may be associated with outgassing of volatiles collected in or beneath mare basalt flows. Wefind that LTP tend to occur near the edges of maria, in agreement with a suggestion originally made by Cameron (1972. Icarus 16, 339–387), and in other regions of crustal weakness. We also find that some of the reported events tend to be in craters with rims of distinctly different (bluer) composition. This compositional difference may result from recent slumping of the rim, accompanied by the appearance of fresher underlying material. In some cases, slumping may be triggered by the release of pockets of volatiles; in turn the slumping events may cause additional pockets of trapped material to be released. There are four instances in which Clementine multispectral images were acquired both before and after an event that was reported by a terrestrial team of amateur astronomers mobilized to observe the Moon during the mapping phase of Clementine. None of these four sets of images shows clear changes that could be attributed to the reported LTP.

Lunar Transient Phenomena (1.18 mb pdf)

reply to post by mcrom901


Hey mcrom,

The Living Moon is hosting a very extensive catalogue of TLPs, I'll send you the link to them over u2u.

Update: The Show we are all talking about has just been uploaded to youtube.



Enjoy...

Originally posted by depthoffield
So, the image is not a "24 bit color" if you know the term from photoshop, but only a POSTERIZED IMAGE, or if you want, a low dynamic range image.
And what happens with pixels where the temperature is just near the boundary of some two adjacent ranges? Well, deppending on the threshold, image noise and other variations, that pixel could appear on some range on in the other, so, could change it's color.
But this is only an instrument limit.

i've done a short experiment to further illustrate what i said before.

I took a short random sequence from the LCROSS's VISIBLE camera, the one with black and white image.
I reduced the ranges of colors, in this case shades of gray, to only 12.
Here is the result:




Now, we can see, that some pixels seem to flash! or dissapear! (in fact going to one color (range) to another color (range).
A bit of zoom in one bright area, to see some "flashes":



imagine if i used an artificially colored image, the effects would be more striking


Further more, in NASA video, with alleged "real flashes"... we have just two IR sequences about 15..20 seconds, and, according to some, those are real flashes, some TLPs... what are the chances to catch not one, but some more transient lunar phenomenons in just every short sequence?? Instead, maybe someone will say that those are some "fires" burning or something, acting at long durations, not "transient" ones...



[edit on 18/10/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by Exuberant1


I too feel the same way that there is inconsistency and incompatibility somehow prevalent to what they present us and what might actually happening.
In the video feed with the "laptop guy" before the room sequence, there is the final stages of the descend but presented in a processed manner. You can;t really tell if its an afterward processed visual effect that fades out and supposedly presents a cloud of materials hitting the shepherd craft visual camera. This sequence then turns in to IR filters enabling us to see surprisingly very little of the ejected material that was probably launched in an upward fashion getting exposed momentarily at the sunlight at above the lunar horizon and being registered as red through the IR filter. You can count how many there are with a single hand. 2 or 3 little rocks or peaks of dense dust clouds which should be registered as weird. Ought to be more of that registered right? Also the raw live video unprocessed displays a striking flash and that's it. You can't discern anything out of it. Is this the same video? Do we get a fake video sequence in order for the "anomalies" to disappear from public view?

Originally posted by jar11
reply to post by spacebot

 

I have thought about this very thing many times. It is disheartening everytime and wolf has been cried too many times and it makes people want to give up!

There..

Originally posted by deejayiwan
im into it................

i really feel something BIG is about to happen for sure...

look at it this way...no one expected economy failure, but it happened, no one expected swine flu, it happened....

my point is...you cant always predict how things are going to unfold....

Fortunately the universe is unpredictable. If it wasn't we wouldn't be here at the first place talking about it.
It only takes a single mistake during an unexpected occurrence for an unexpected clue, for some extraordinary piece of evidence to escape their attention and speak volumes of what they might be hiding in plain view.

Now on to my way to watch the second part of that C2C show to see what's new with Hoagland's claims.
Also if we just apply the term "TLP" in everything we don't do much in regard of finding what happened. We just put a proposed theory in place that might be or not be accurate instead of really trying to do our own homework in a given subject.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by spacebot]

I have to be surprised why NASA didn't extensively cover in the press the ejecting cloud part of the mission captured visually from the cameras. Is it like something we get to see in every mission they launch? No!
It's the first time we get to see such a display of how lunar surface or another planetary body (moon is actually more of a planetoid instead of a typical moon) surface might behave if impacted.
NASA's way of presenting things is getting more puzzling every time.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by spacebot]

Originally posted by depthoffield
reply to Exuberant1

 

About the flashes...continuing repeating that they are real, don't make them true real, you should know this.

It looks much more as image glitches, simply because entire IR image have more or less pixel variations (flashes if you want), especially on boundaries.

More, the image is artificially colored, and , as i see, there are just a few colors available representing not temperatures itself, but entire RANGES of temperatures: purple, blue, green, yellow, red and some 2..3 variations of them. I would say roughly to be some about 10..15 levels of different colors, so different RANGES of temperatures. As a matter of exemplifying the principle, let's say that the intervals are color-coded as this:
-270 degree Celsius to -200 degree -> purple color
-200 to -170 -> blue color
-170 to -130 -> green color
- 130 to -100 -> yellow color
-100 to -80 -> red color
I repeat, this values are arbitrary, just for illustrating the principle.
So, the image is not a "24 bit color" if you know the term from photoshop, but only a POSTERIZED IMAGE, or if you want, a low dynamic range image.
And what happens with pixels where the temperature is just near the boundary of some two adjacent ranges? Well, deppending on the threshold, image noise and other variations, that pixel could appear on some range on in the other, so, could change it's color.
But this is only an instrument limit.
More the image appear to be pixelated, and a anti-aliased filter it seems to be applied, but also some sharpening is there.
So, before jumping to wild speculations, you MUST understand how the image is obtained, what are the limitations and only after to look for REAL anomalies. Otherwise, you could be just another image glitch hunter.



[edit on 18/10/09 by depthoffield]

Well said they always overlook the real probable cause because guess what its to dull for them if its not ET or EVIDENCE OF ET, but like good newspaper reporters to many on here will make up a reason that is well more exciting! and to hell with what is most likely the REAL cause!

So Hoagland jumps all over Wilcox for saying that there is going to be official disclosure by year's end. He all but calls the guy a moron for saying such...

Then, a week later he says the same? But he's quite the one-upsman it appears as he is proclaiming that the disclosure will come within a few WEEKS and it will deal with structures on the moon (!!!) no less?

Ridiculous.
Hoagland is a baffoon. This guy is like the equivalent of the "no planes" advocates for 9-11 truth.

Lets just deal with whether or not the ET exist before we claim that they built the face at cydonia or some other such absurd BS okay?

reply to post by JayinAR


No, Hoagland just demonstrated the level of protocol that is in place, and that this information was not meant to be given by David at that moment, he thought. And instead he discovered that this is now the push, and it is time to leak this information. That is what makes the most logical sense when assessing it.

reply to post by JayinAR


Yea, but what if they (local ET civs) only existed in the past, millions or billions of years ago? Then, all we SHOULD be looking for is artifacts, structures, and archaelogical things.

I think it is just as likely that there are current local ET civs, but i think you broaden the chances of finding anything ET related by taking into account the past...

I think hoagy's pics of towers, spires, and other structures all over the moon are pretty good evidence to at least go to those areas and look more closely...Not saying it IS evidence of ET civs past or present, but it IS reason to ask questions and explore with better resolution pics, which oddly never seem to come out from NASA, or US Navy's Clementine mission, or even other nation's Space missions. I wonder why?

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Boom Slice]

Originally posted by Boom Slice
I think hoagy's pics of towers, spires, and other structures all over the moon are pretty good evidence to at least go to those areas and look more closely...Not saying it IS evidence of ET civs past or present, but it IS reason to ask questions and explore with better resolution pics

Do you want government to pay more from your money investigating any image glitch or pareidolia thing?



[edit on 18/10/09 by depthoffield]