Hoagland's Smoking Gun Pt. II

Internos, it may explain that photo but it doesn't explain the other photos. Specifically, the one taken by Armstrong of the cigar shaped craft. One rotten apple doesn't necessarily mean the entire bunch is spoiled. It just means he happened to make an error.

Or, he's a liar. But, looking at his past interviews on Project Camelot, he doesn't come across that way.

reply to post by internos


Haha, your work is being more and more widespread internos
Thankfully you are still around to enlighten us poor souls that lacks your knowledge

I've never considered Hoagland to come with accurate information.
And, what isn't on the pictures of his, he probably add himself.

reply to post by RiotComing


I wish i could take a look, but the links seem to be broken:
i promise i will share my take on the in some unbiased way, as you should know i'm used to.
Please, is there any alternative way to see them, mate?

Check out my Phobos thread for related subject matter!!!

Intriguing Phobos Anomaly!!!

reply to post by Skeptical Ed


Yeah, wow. Your attitude really illustrates how smart you are. You can not just be happy not believing, you have to ridicule everyone else.

You can clutch your pillow as tightly as you wish, but your lack of belief only illustrates your ignorance.

Get in line, get your flu shot, and please leave these discussions to people who desire to actually engage in thoughtful discourse.

The first sign of a lack of understanding is the insistence that not only are you right, but everyone else is stupid for being wrong. You actually have the audacity to lob insults at people you don't even know, and use it as some sort of self satisfying proof that you are obviously more intelligent.

You are not a skeptic, you are a sleeper. You won't survive the end of days.

[edit on 26-10-2009 by GideonHM]

Let me remind the ones who not coop with hoaglands statements that there ones was treaty to not install weapons in space.

The Outer Space Treaty, formally known as the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, is a treaty that forms the basis of international space law. The treaty was opened for signature in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union on January 27, 1967, and entered into force on October 10, 1967. As of January 2008, 99 countries are states-parties to the treaty, while another 26 have signed the treaty but have not yet completed ratification.The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law. Among its principles, it bars States Parties to the Treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Art.IV). However, the Treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit.

The treaty explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet, since they are the Common heritage of mankind.[1] Art. II of the Treaty states, in fact, that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means". The pendant for giving up sovereignty in outer space is the jurisdiction and control that the State that launches a space object retains. According to Manfred Lachs, jurisdiction and control is giving the means to the State to conduct a mission of space exploration.

Can someone tell me what is the difference to explode a one thousand pound bomb on the moon and weapons in space? In my opinion none. Even if it is being used for so called space moon exploration. There are other means to discover water.

So this gives Mr hoagland every right to assume and to investigate with possible outcome of the real intend of this mission. So that this could be fully being investigated to matter of the space treaty.

S&F

Outer Space Treaty



[edit on 11/02/2007 by 0bserver1]

[edit on 11/02/2007 by 0bserver1]

Interesting to say the least, the images of the right angled 'walls' are actually quite striking, I am looking forward to seeing how this develops.

Thanks OP, good post

Its rumoured that the CIA have satellites that can read the registration number plate of a car from orbit, why not use the same satellites they have , oh thats right we're not supposed to know about them are we. and that it would be a waste of taxpayers money to send a satellite that complex to photograph dusty moon rocks after all there's nothing on the moon is there?

Okay guys take it easy. No need for attacks. Just add your two cents and why you think that way. That is what this place is all about.

And now for my 2 cents...

Frankly I have always thought Hoagland seemed a little off, not just his theories, the way in which he asserts them.

Quite frankly everytime I look at his photos I really can't see crap. How they make shapes out of some of these blurs I don't get.

HOWEVER, that is my whole problem with the moon, the blurry black and white photos we have been spoon fed.

In 1976 we got full color panoramic pictures of mars. Still have none of the moon.

In 2008 the Japanese who build some of the best cameras on the planet sent a craft to the moon and posted "The first High Def pictures of the Moon" and they sucked. These so called high def pictures were so far away and so blurry you could see nothing.

WHY????

Why can't we see some clear color pictures of the moon?

Does everyone here really believe that out of all those impact craters there are no colors on the moon? The many types of ejecta from so many different elements and no color? Bull Crap!

It states on NASA's website that if you ask each astranaut what color the moon is you will get several differant answers. They admit to removing colors from the photos.

Okay while looking for the address of the color removal on NASA's site I saw this pic, nothing unusual about the pic, except the quote under it stating it is an unmanned crater. Why would they say that? See what I mean? Maybe they meant to say un-named, but NASA causes their own conspiracy theories with these types of screw ups and inconsistancies.

www.nasa.gov...

But here is the link about color on the moon and them removing colors. This reads like a bunch of double talk. It is crap like this that makes people not trust NASA.

history.nasa.gov...

I like these two lines the best:

"The fact that all color film shot on the moon was made for an Earth-based chromatic spectrum of light, not that of a vacuum -- the film 'saw' color differently in space than it would on Earth. The colors that it recorded are thus not to be trusted in the same way that we trust color film on Earth. You are perhaps familiar with the fact that many scientists argued for not even taking color film to the moon, citing spectral inaccuracy and the fact that it has less acutance (sharpness) than black and white film, as well as a narrower latitude, or range of capturing relative brightness and dimness. It did, however, have great public-relations value"

"So: I worked in my exhibition printing towards a neutral gray, isolating what I felt to be filmic issues and eliminating them. There is still color in my prints, but filmic casts and filmic crossover has been largely eliminated; I worked to eliminate mission-specific filmic artifacts"

There's more of this stuff from him, it is too funny. He even says two dupes of the same master came out with differant colors. This is the best NASA could come up with? They can't even make copies without messing up the colors? Good God take it to Walgreens, they'll make you some color prints!

LOL!

NASA kills me.

Been waiting for Richards assessment, THANKS for posting!!

S&F

I read the article and it's a bunch of drivel. Hoagland is so full of himself it makes one sick. In his book Dark Mission he refers to himself as Hoagland. In ways like: and Hoaglands brilliance led to the discovery of...........etc. I think NASA is hiding stuff but Hoagland goes a little far.

Originally posted by ablue07
I read the article and it's a bunch of drivel. Hoagland is so full of himself it makes one sick. In his book Dark Mission he refers to himself as Hoagland. In ways like: and Hoaglands brilliance led to the discovery of...........etc. I think NASA is hiding stuff but Hoagland goes a little far.

Ah the usual ad hominum drivel!
Oh and Bera much?

tbh Im not a fan of hoagland, he claims to be this scientist who knows better than anyone else yet his theories always seem to be full of holes, yet if anyone questions it he will shout them down with his self absorbed arrogance. Hoagland always seems to make grand leaps in order to reach HIS conclusion and this article seems to be another example of this. Also Hoagland thinks that Obama is one of the good guys fighting for disclosure which shows how little he knows about the political world and how far his imagination will stretch. If there is full disclosure, it will probably be part of another of the governments sinister agendas to keep us living in fear.

color images of the moon, clementine mission. Nearside + farside .

Use windows viewer to zoom.

ser.sese.asu.edu...

[edit on 26-10-2009 by benzjie]

Originally posted by SpaceMonkeys
tbh Im not a fan of hoagland, he claims to be this scientist who knows better than anyone else yet his theories always seem to be full of holes, yet if anyone questions it he will shout them down with his self absorbed arrogance. Hoagland always seems to make grand leaps in order to reach HIS conclusion and this article seems to be another example of this. Also Hoagland thinks that Obama is one of the good guys fighting for disclosure which shows how little he knows about the political world and how far his imagination will stretch. If there is full disclosure, it will probably be part of another of the governments sinister agendas to keep us living in fear.

Cant we just look past the character of the man for once and look at his evidence, please!!!

reply to post by RiotComing

Of course, Neil Armstrong will never go on public record as saying that, but the evidence does mount up.

I am reasonably sure that this Armstrong quote put forth by some fictitious professor never happened. I know Neil, my dad knew Niel and my Grandfather knew him. I have had lunch/dinner with him on several occasions and we speak when convenient (which over the last many years is never, lol). I don't know how Neil carried himself of spoke like in his younger years, but I can tell you the quote you listed doesn't fit with how he would speak based on conversations I have had with him.

For one thing, he didn't use the word "sir" in it enough, lol. Even when casually speaking he uses the word "sir" like we would use the "man" or "dude", or even substitutes "sir" instead of addressing someone by first name after formal introductions. I haven't seen a whole bunch of TV interviews with him, so I don't know if these mannerisms were used on camera or not, but I can tell you in person how he is. But, they did include something like "Boy, were they big!...and menacing!" which does fit his mannerisms I am familiar with. He would say "boy" as an exclamation, replacing words like "wow", "cool", etc. with it. But I can't see him using the word "menacing". Not much menacing to that guy, instead I see him using the word "formidable" or something like that...especially if he is talking to a professor.

Been a while since I have spoke to him, actually I have only spoken with him maybe 4-5 times since we met last at my Grandfather's funeral many years ago. I sure would like to strike up a conversation with him now though, lol, but I would feel awkward getting in touch with him after so long. I should find an excuse before its too late....

I forgot I should add this link here as it is very important to this thread.

Since the 70's NASA has thought that the moon is not a natural moon and was a planet that got caught in our gravity.

Check out this very scientific paper on this fact.

They don't teach it in school though. It is a natural moon to the earth they keep telling the public.

See they hide stuff and people wonder why we don't trust them.

Why does no one wonder how a natural moon would have a molten core like a planet in the first place.

Link to NASA site:

history.nasa.gov...

Some have stated an alternate impact theory that a planet hit earth and knocked out part of it that formed the moon.

They lean towards this one because they state something would have had to slow the moon down for it to stay in orbit.

If they read this paper they would see they think we had 4 to 6 little moons that impacted this planet during capture. That could have slowed it down enough to stay in orbit.

This fits in because it could have been a planet inhabited and there really could be ruins up there.

history.nasa.gov...

I have read Hoagland's article and I find it informative. The issue is not hoagland or how he presents his evidence or theories, the issue is... and always has been, is there evidence of any prior or current civilization on the Moon?... (not to exclude Mars, but the Moon is the subject of this original post). I have resorted to using what is available at hand to further my own research into this subject. I have some images taken from Google Moon (P/O Google Earth) that I find extremely interesting. All are from Tycho Crater with the one exception titled 'vehicle' which is near the Apollo 15 landing site. There are 25 images with coordinates for those who would like to look for themselves. You should keep an open mind in doing so. Look for geometry and rectiliniarity and also shadow angles. Tycho is one of the few areas in google moon with decent enough resolution to see anything worthwhile, even though it is heavily obfuscated and image tampered with. The tampering is probably the most obvious thing you might notice when looking around Tycho. If there is nothing to hide... then why the image tampering?
s615.photobucket.com...

d

[edit on 26-10-2009 by dennisdvx]

Originally posted by whattheh


HOWEVER, that is my whole problem with the moon, the blurry black and white photos we have been spoon fed.

In 1976 we got full color panoramic pictures of mars. Still have none of the moon.

In 2008 the Japanese who build some of the best cameras on the planet sent a craft to the moon and posted "The first High Def pictures of the Moon" and they sucked. These so called high def pictures were so far away and so blurry you could see nothing.

WHY????

Why can't we see some clear color pictures of the moon?

Right On..! thats what bothers me also.. Why so blurry if we can pin point a dime on the table with those sophisticated satellites we have. Why is it such trouble to give decent hight quality pictures in full color from the moon and mars... ???

I wish there was a tool or maybe some good programmer could make a software tool to 100% unsolved the blurring and smearing on those pictures.