Hoagland's Smoking Gun Pt. II

Originally posted by moonwize
Skeptical Ed, I am going to say that you and I are in the same age bracket. So.. now with all the photos and information you possess, you are saying you have never found anything but natural formations on the moon? From what you said on page 5, you should have come across something that would have caught your eye, I mean really!! The reason I don't post is I don't have a scanner as of yet. And being an ancient one myself, I am just learning to use a computer.
Now ... I am with these younger ones on here who does think there is something up there. I will admit that some of the images posted I don't see anything. But .. then these people may have an eye for this stuff... which Sir, I am sorry to say you may not .
I am female. so don't feel you have to be polite. I been called a lot of things in my ancient time, so I am pretty much conditioned to it.

Hi oldtimer: I have found many unusual formations in the thousands of photos I've looked at. But they were not unnatural. For example: like Hoagland I've found faces, one from 2 different angles. But I know that it is the result of pareidolia. There's a "face" at www.lpi.usra.edu...

Bigfoot "print" at www.lpi.usra.edu... bottom right corner.

Sorry, but regardless of age, no one has an eye for this stuff. If it's there, anyone can see it. No one has really posted any images of anything that has withstood scrutiny. No one has posted a high resolution image with anything that is not natural. Usually, the photos they see things in have to be blown up beyond usability which results in blurry images or pixelated images. And pixels are not round so they'll create squares, rectangles, etc., which is just handy to point out human-like structures.

I'm not going to be nasty with you as you say others have, but you shouldn't put yourself in a superior position without the experience to back it up. You said: "But .. then these people may have an eye for this stuff... which Sir, I am sorry to say you may not ." A ridiculous comment since you have no idea of what I know. You said you don't see anything yet you criticize me, a person with a ton of experience at looking at thousands of lunar photos of all qualities, large and small. I took on Fred Steckling the author of "WE DISCOVERED ALIEN BASES ON THE MOON" and I proved him wrong and I have his letter admitting so.

Stay calm, look and study but do so with a keen eye, age is not a factor. A good brain is.

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

Originally posted by moonwize
Skeptical Ed, I am going to say that you and I are in the same age bracket. So.. now with all the photos and information you possess, you are saying you have never found anything but natural formations on the moon? From what you said on page 5, you should have come across something that would have caught your eye, I mean really!! The reason I don't post is I don't have a scanner as of yet. And being an ancient one myself, I am just learning to use a computer.
Now ... I am with these younger ones on here who does think there is something up there. I will admit that some of the images posted I don't see anything. But .. then these people may have an eye for this stuff... which Sir, I am sorry to say you may not .
I am female. so don't feel you have to be polite. I been called a lot of things in my ancient time, so I am pretty much conditioned to it.

Hi oldtimer: I have found many unusual formations in the thousands of photos I've looked at. But they were not unnatural. For example: like Hoagland I've found faces, one from 2 different angles. But I know that it is the result of pareidolia. There's a "face" at www.lpi.usra.edu...

Bigfoot "print" at www.lpi.usra.edu... bottom right corner.

Sorry, but regardless of age, no one has an eye for this stuff. If it's there, anyone can see it. No one has really posted any images of anything that has withstood scrutiny. No one has posted a high resolution image with anything that is not natural. Usually, the photos they see things in have to be blown up beyond usability which results in blurry images or pixelated images. And pixels are not round so they'll create squares, rectangles, etc., which is just handy to point out human-like structures.

I'm not going to be nasty with you as you say others have, but you shouldn't put yourself in a superior position without the experience to back it up. You said: "But .. then these people may have an eye for this stuff... which Sir, I am sorry to say you may not ." A ridiculous comment since you have no idea of what I know. You said you don't see anything yet you criticize me, a person with a ton of experience at looking at thousands of lunar photos of all qualities, large and small. I took on Fred Steckling the author of "WE DISCOVERED ALIEN BASES ON THE MOON" and I proved him wrong and I have his letter admitting so.

Stay calm, look and study but do so with a keen eye, age is not a factor. A good brain is.

Ed, Ed Ed, as sure you seem of yourself, you simply cant prove your view, Im not saying I can Im just trying to take you down a notch of that all knowing-cartesian high horse you seem to be trotting around on.

Im sorry but if you want to ascribe all the evidence of unnatural formations in the solar system to natural formations then I can only highly disagree.

I suppose these pics I posted in a recent thread are natural formations, Im not saying I know what they are, but they are very clearly anomalous, at least to the extend tht I know you cant tell me what they are!!!

Intriguing Phobos Anomaly

There is something really important about Hoagland's work, as if he needs to be promoted. This was one of the messages that came to me from my own contacts. Its the investigational trail Hoagland follows, I think people really need to be informed more about what is on our moon and the ufology issue.

Skeptical Ed... No.. I don't know you, I just know of you on the threads. Sorry if it seemed that I was critical. But again I apologize . And I did say that I did not see anything on SOME of the pictures posted.
You are very fortunate indeed to have been able to go thru thousands of Moon images.
I have been studying moon pics for close to 40 years. and I have 3 old National Geographics.
Yes, you are right as of now I can't back up my claims. I am hoping in the next few months that will change. I still have a lot of work to do on sketches and getting all the material together. Plus learn how to get around on the computer.
I am not delusional. I know what I see.
Oh! by the way.. I loved that face!!

Originally posted by Nichiren
Hoagland's mid-infrared pic threw me for a second until I realized that any extremely hot surface (lunar noon above 250 F) will radiate heat. And it makes sense that the cooler parts don't emit radiation into space, therefore there is no "curving yellow line" at those regions. It puzzles me that Mr. Hoagland doesn't know this.

Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation emitted from the surface of an object which is due to the object's temperature. An example of thermal radiation is the infrared radiation emitted by a common household radiator or electric heater.

source: wiki

A two second wiki check would have saved him a lot of work ...

The difference is that the Moon isn't supposed to have an atmosphere. You need a medium to conduct the heat in and the Moon does not have one... or so we are told. So in short, NO. Your explination doesn't hold water.

Originally posted by Shere Khaan
I am not talking about every word, I have been primarily discussing his alien dome. And yes, I think this issue is black or white; there is either an alien dome and city there as Hoagland alleges, or there isn't.

Well so far I havn't seen anything that explains what we see in the IR picture that Hoagland used. I'm not just being argumentative when I say I can't see something similar in the picture of Mercury, I just really don't see it. If you could post a better picture or a similar picture of another airless world then I would take pause, but I just did a quick search and didn't find anything similar.

In another post you showed another pic of the Moon in IR and said that the dome was in a different place. I havn't looked too closely at that pic and compared it to the other pic, but I don't see how that would make much of a difference considering that Hoagland theorizes that there isn't just one dome, but many domes all over the entire lunar surface. So I don't see this as conflicting with what he is suggesting.

I am not 100% convinced that the entire Lunar surface is covered in glass domes, and infact I think it is unlikely, but I don't think the question is as black and white as you do either. Maybe the IR data is showing us something that is related to the water that is supposedly created on a daily basis. Maybe it has something to do with some sort of force or phenomenon that we are not expecting or don't currently understand. I find the information interesting and think we should go to the Moon and try and find out the answer to these questions.


And what about Hoagland's point that we should have seen a flash of light or a plume of debris? I think he makes a good point there. The part with the bunker buster I think was a good illustration as to what really happened. Again that doesn't nessecarily mean that there is an underground base there but it does appear that the impactor may have been swallowed in some sort of underground cavern... and a base can't be ruled out either.

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
..... or so we are told.

What do you mean "we" kemosabe?

I'm pretty sure most space agencies, astronomers, etc.....are in agreement that the moon has a very tenuous, wispy atmosphere. And this hasn't really been a secret.

It isn't right to "make stuff up" just to bolster a weak argument.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by MrPenny]

reply to post by MrPenny


We, meaning the people of Earth. The public. Do I really have to explain that?


So what is your point? Are you trying to say that this is just heat escaping the Moon and into space? Try and find a serious scientist who says that happens. They don't exist. There must be a medium to conduct the heat. We are told there is none.

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw

Originally posted by Nichiren
Hoagland's mid-infrared pic threw me for a second until I realized that any extremely hot surface (lunar noon above 250 F) will radiate heat. And it makes sense that the cooler parts don't emit radiation into space, therefore there is no "curving yellow line" at those regions. It puzzles me that Mr. Hoagland doesn't know this.

Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation emitted from the surface of an object which is due to the object's temperature. An example of thermal radiation is the infrared radiation emitted by a common household radiator or electric heater.

source: wiki

A two second wiki check would have saved him a lot of work ...

The difference is that the Moon isn't supposed to have an atmosphere. You need a medium to conduct the heat in and the Moon does not have one... or so we are told. So in short, NO. Your explination doesn't hold water.

"Heat" doesn't necessarily need matter. There is an easy explanation of what is happening in Hoagland's IR pic.

There are
three methods of heat transfer: conduction, convection,
and radiation. The first two require matter as the
transporting agent. In space, which is essentially a
vacuum, radiation is the method of heat transfer. This
radiation comes in the form of visible light, infrared,
ultraviolet, x-, and gamma-rays."

source:answers.google.com...

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts


You mean some hidden mission about domes.
He is grabbing at intel money to take us away from the main find.
The Moon has no energy to cause a big splash.
According to energy in the atmosphere people there is no surprise.
After all the energy for the atomic bombs came from the atmosphere.
Now that was a big splash.
There might be other ways to make an atomic bomb power display.
Especially if Tunguska was man made with ether pressure waves.
Ed: I know you can't believe but oxygen is at least needed for
combustion of any kind. Let see NASA, un like popular belief our
scientific ancestors told us there is no oxygen on the Moon, go back
and find out why.

[edit on 10/28/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
The difference is that the Moon isn't supposed to have an atmosphere. You need a medium to conduct the heat in and the Moon does not have one... or so we are told. So in short, NO. Your explination doesn't hold water.

Sorry but you are just plain wrong. Infrared is electromagnetic radiation or "light". It propagates through space just fine without a medium, how do you think he suns light gets to us? You are thinking about sound waves which travel via the atmosphere.

You've been arguing about what infrared images show and you don't even understand what it is?

Edit: And the person who starred your post also shows how little they know about basic scientific concepts.

[edit on 28/10/09 by Shere Khaan]

Originally posted by Nichiren
"Heat" doesn't necessarily need matter. There is an easy explanation of what is happening in Hoagland's IR pic.

There are
three methods of heat transfer: conduction, convection,
and radiation. The first two require matter as the
transporting agent. In space, which is essentially a
vacuum, radiation is the method of heat transfer. This
radiation comes in the form of visible light, infrared,
ultraviolet, x-, and gamma-rays."

source:answers.google.com...

I don't understand how the link you provided can be viewed as clarification on this subject. It does not address the specific example at all and is very vauge and general.

I think what the link is saying is that the sun would heat the surface of the Moon via radiation, but it would not heat the space above the Moon. So yes radiation will work throough space, but not on space. The only way for space to be heated is if there is something in that space to be heated (your link even states this).

So there must be something there! We know the Moon has an "atmosphere" but it is almost nonexistant and way to small to account for what we see in the photo. So the explinations for this could range anywhere from there are lunar domes all over the surface, to there really is an atmosphere, to some phenomenon that we don't yet understand or even know exists, to some sort of problem or malfunction with the image itself, but that it is heat just escaping into space and heating up the emptyness is not possible.

How come the debunkers never present scientific information unless it conforms with their view point? I'm sure plenty of the people that ridicule RCH could explain why space isn't hot better than I could...

Originally posted by Outlawstar

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

Originally posted by moonwize
snip

Ed, Ed Ed, as sure you seem of yourself, you simply cant prove your view, Im not saying I can Im just trying to take you down a notch of that all knowing-cartesian high horse you seem to be trotting around on.

Im sorry but if you want to ascribe all the evidence of unnatural formations in the solar system to natural formations then I can only highly disagree.

You are entitled to your opinion. But it should be an educated opinion.

reply to post by Shere Khaan


So now who is just being argumentative? Read my previous post. I know you could explain to the other poster why he is wrong but for whatever reason you don't. Instead you ignore that he is wrong and are even pretending that he isn't.

Originally posted by Outlawstar
I suppose these pics I posted in a recent thread are natural formations, Im not saying I know what they are, but they are very clearly anomalous, at least to the extend tht I know you cant tell me what they are!!!

Intriguing Phobos Anomaly

They are natural formations until you provide evidence that they are not. Interpretation of a far-away object is nebulous at best. In the 1980s there were 2 books containing NASA photos and the authors claimed that they could point out alien structures on the photos. Of course, not a single photo showed anything but natural formations. The problems were that the photos were small and the object was either too distant to see the detail or the photo was worthless for any kind of claim.

The two authors used one particular photo and both authors called the same "anomaly" (in their eyes) a different name. In George Leonard's "SOMEBODY ELSE IS ON THE MOON" the author says about PLATE 23 "Unexplained white light, which may be pure energy, is flowing over rim of Lobachavsky (sic) Crater." Fred Steckling in his book "WE DISCOVERED ALIEN BASES ON THE MOON" says a different thing about Leonard's "white light" and both were wrong. The "white light" is simply high albedo. In the photograph found in both books, the reproduction is poor, highly contrasted so that the high albedo really shone. Stupid interpretation from both. Find any photograph of Crater Lobachevsky and you can still see this albedo because it's a natural feature that was misinterpreted.

In well reproduced photos as in this one (www12.plala.or.jp...) you can see the albedo (bottom edge towards the left on the rim) much clearer.

I say that the object on the Phobos photos is simply a pointed hill that has high albedo and the sun illuminates it.

Originally posted by moonwize
Skeptical Ed... No.. I don't know you, I just know of you on the threads. Sorry if it seemed that I was critical. But again I apologize . And I did say that I did not see anything on SOME of the pictures posted.
You are very fortunate indeed to have been able to go thru thousands of Moon images.
I have been studying moon pics for close to 40 years. and I have 3 old National Geographics.
Yes, you are right as of now I can't back up my claims. I am hoping in the next few months that will change. I still have a lot of work to do on sketches and getting all the material together. Plus learn how to get around on the computer.
I am not delusional. I know what I see.
Oh! by the way.. I loved that face!!

One thing about me is that I'm thorough and even Jim Oberg paid me a great compliment on UNEXPLAINED MYSTERIES forum by telling everyone there that I am, indeed, detail minded. If I were to show you my extensive research notes just on Fred Steckling's and George Leonard's books and some of Hoagland's photos, your mind would be blown. I have cross-referenced beyond mondo all of my sources. I have looked at all of the lunar images with various magnifying glasses and some photos I've looked at many times. My ATLAS contains 675 large plates and I scoured each PLATE more times than anyone would like to do, always looking for that feature that didn't look normal, that stood out. I found many interesting images such as the realistic looking face in Crater Aristarchus seen in 2 different photos. My scouring the photos allowed me to find the only anomaly I laid claim to and that was a lunar opening with 2 UFOs looking as if they're trying to make the opening before the Lunar Orbiter saw them. It looks like one of the UFOs is already halfway in the opening. That was the only photo I ordered a large poster-size print from NASA and the larger size and improved resolution shot down my imagined lunar base opening. But if you were to see what I thought you'd be calling a press conference which I started to prepare for!

Keep looking and always get a confirmation from someone else before you make any claims. I look forward to you posting something that will knock me out of my shoes.

BTW, in the early I used '80s I was "battling" with a couple of guys who used to send their sketches to FATE magazine of things they claimed they saw through their earthbound small telescopes. I could see where they made their interpretation mistakes but my biggest concern was that their sketches were far removed from what the photos actually showed. So while your sketches may not win any artistic awards, at least always include a point of reference, such as a lunar feature name so that researchers such as me can close in on the area.


[edit on 28-10-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
We are told there is none.

You are absolutely, 100% wrong. "We" are not being told there is none. If "you" are being told that.....the people telling you that are misinformed, intentionally misleading you, or stupid.

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
reply to post by Shere Khaan

 

So now who is just being argumentative? Read my previous post. I know you could explain to the other poster why he is wrong but for whatever reason you don't. Instead you ignore that he is wrong and are even pretending that he isn't.

I have told you repeatedly why and you ignore it. It's diffraction of the infrared light. Shine a torch at a hanging sphere, you will see that the light bends around the sphere and you will get a bright spot in the middle of the shadow at a certain distance.

Demanding scientific proof from skeptics when hoagland only presents a low res 360 pixel screenshot of a modified image is not rational. How about demaning one shred of proof from Hoagland?

Ok, so this thread is nominally about the merits of Hoagland’s smoking gun hypothesis, good/bad etc. But it is also about a lot more than that. Arguing over grainy pictures, incomplete data sets and scientific principles is the “empirical” way to proceed, but it is also exactly what the powers that be what to achieve: a stalemate. Because we don’t have the complete picture, our scientific method cannot proceed. All knowledge comes from ideas. Ideas come from the information we process. If that information is limited, then so is our REALITY. I hope all of you will agree (even those of you who can’t stand Hoagland’s craziness!) that NASA and the powers that be, have censored, controlled and manipulated all information pertaining to what they have found “up there”.

As I’ve previously argued ( see Hoghead Cheese too) the POINT is why are we still dependent on these extremely basic, low resolution, low tech pictures? Why can’t we have high-resolution, pin sharp pictures relayed by satellites right to our HD plasma monitors, right now, in real-time, beamed from rover-cams or fixed observation posts on the moon’s surface? We should be able to see pictures just as if we had a cam on a beach in Thailand -- and you should be able to see every grain of sand! It’s our nearest neighbor for god’s sake! It’s FORTY YEARS since we stepped on the moon! How can that be? We are being treated like morons and all this arguing over domes etc. is in the end is missing the point. The point is that we are not being given ACCESS to the information that could decide the matter one way or another. And Hoagland, god bless him, deserves credit for bringing this greater truth to our attention.

I’m not anti-American and I guess the decision on this cover-up goes wide -- probably including the Vatican, other leading nations, and all those concerned with world stability. And yes, the Japanese and the Indians also seem to be suppressing the evidence, although the Indians seem keen to let the cat out of the bag. Sometimes you have to use your “intuition” to see the bigger picture

My likely guess is this:
Nasa found something on the moon, a long time ago, so frightening in its implications for mankind, they’re still running scared right now. They don’t know how to reveal this information to the public without frightening them. So we have a managed process in place to slowly reveal the bigger picture to the public.