Apollo 12's Covert EVA , Are E.T.'s the reason for the Secrecy ?

some more interesting reading about the "Dead Moon Dictum"

During 1998, two major scientific developments were announced concerning the “discovery" of water and atmosphere on the Moon.

It is important to mention these because they are certainly relevant to this book/ and because in some quarters they have again aroused enthusiasm about the possibility of colonizing the lunar satellite. These recent developments are momentous and wonderful, to be sure. The Moon is no longer the dead, arid, airless and uninhabitable satellite that ALL official sources since the 1920s have insisted it was.


Not only is the Dead Moon Dictum now almost magically and abruptly overturned, but these two lunar developments make it seem as though official science is marching onward in some kind of full-disclosure fashion.

However, one must keep in mind that this is the same Moon that was the expensive colonizing target of the American and Soviet 1960s Space Age efforts, the same Moon that was frequently orbited, upon which men walked, and the same Moon no one went back to. And if one knows something of the Moon’s many shocking oddities and anomalies, it is clear that there are numerous lunar factors still lingering in the cover-up scenarios.


As we have seen, those factors are not insignificant. Collectively accumulated by numerous unofficial observers utilizing official documents, evidence for them is copious, direct and quite compelling. As to the water, it is said to be in the form of ice, mostly at the poles and buried about half a meter beneath the lunar surface. The estimates are impressive regarding how much of it there is: some six billion metric tons.

This is said to be enough to sustain upwards of 100,000 lunar colonists for a century and also provide a fuel source of oxygen and hydrogen for Moonbases and space travel.


While this is exciting news, if the evidence is taken into account for earlier-known lunar clouds and mists clearly visible in some official released photos of the 1960s, then one cannot think that ALL of the lunar water is only in the form of sub-surface ice. As any dictionary or encyclopedia will confirm, a cloud Is defined as “a visible mass of particles of water in the form of fog, mist, or haze suspended at some height in air or atmosphere.” Thus, if the Moon did not have an atmosphere, the mass of water particles would have nothing in which to suspend.


As to the lunar atmosphere, the American Geophysical Union recently indicated that although,

“conventional wisdom says the Moon is devoid of atmosphere, and in layman’s terms this may be close enough to the truth, the space just above the lunar surface is not a total vacuum.”



There is, of course, no doubt that the lunar atmosphere is not like Earth’s. But even if more tenuous and not as thick, the lunar atmosphere now OFFICIALLY exists, as does the lunar water. Thus, the UNOFFICIAL sources of the past that referred to the existence of lunar water and atmosphere have turned out not only to be correct, but ironically vindicate their authors.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

reply to post by easynow


So there is a very tenuous atmosphere on the Moon. Why is that "ground shaking" information?

The atmosphere is so thin that it is negligible (I read somewhere that it is more than a billionth the thickness as the Earth's). It is mainly caused by outgassing and micrometeors kicking up dust. I would think EVERY planet, moon, or asteroid with a mass close to that of the Moon would have an atmosphere such as the Moon's.

[edit on 11/25/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


i never said it was "ground shaking" information...lol

i just posted the Article because it was an interesting read.


ground shaking information to me would be to know the real reasons why NASA employed NAZI war criminals instead of the goverment putting them up against a wall and shooting them. who's bright idea was that ?

reply to post by easynow

No -- you didn't. I apologize.

However, the article you posted made it sound like there has been some conspiracy afoot to keep information about the Moon's tenuous atmosphere and the presence of water from going public.

I think it's more the case of scientists learning more and more about the moon with each subsequent probe sent there. An atmosphere was something some scientists felt for several years existed on the Moon, but it was only the past couple of decades that it was confirmed by science.

The "unofficial sources" were not necessarily spilling secret information about the Moon's atmosphere that was being withheld, but rather this was information that was long hypothesized by science, but not confirmed.

Even the presence of water on the Moon is something that NASA has openly talked about for over 15 years.

[edit on 11/25/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

No -- you didn't. I apologize.

ok thanks i was beginning to wonder why the ground didn't shake when i posted that article

However, the article you posted made it sound like there has been some conspiracy afoot to keep information about the Moon's tenuous atmosphere and the presence of water from going public.

well if you read the article you would have seen that it say's ...

The Moon is no longer the dead, arid, airless and uninhabitable satellite that ALL official sources since the 1920s have insisted it was.

insisting it is a uninhabitable place sounds to me like a conspiracy "afoot" especially since NASA landed Men there and brought back samples and the Russians also had probes land and return samples. there have also been scientific instruments orbiting Luna for how many years now ?

I think it's more the case of scientists learning more and more about the moon with each subsequent probe sent there. An atmosphere was something some scientists felt for several years existed on the Moon, but it was only the past couple of decades that it was confirmed by science.

i disagree and i believe they have known the facts alot longer than you are leading everyone on to believe and imo the only reason it's become more talked about in the "past couple decades" ( imo the last decade) is because there's too much data available now to keep it a secret anymore.

The "unofficial sources" were not necessarily spilling secret information about the Moon's atmosphere that was being withheld, but rather this was information that was long hypothesized by science, but not confirmed.Even the presence of water on the Moon is something that NASA has openly talked about for over 15 years.

i don't know who you are or if you have any connections to NASA and i mean no offense to you and i appreciate your input but as far as i am concerned everything you have said is nothing but speculative proclamations. i might be wrong but i don't think your in any position to tell me any facts about this when you are most likely not part of the group of people that would know these kind of things before it gets released to the general public.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

However, the article you posted made it sound like there has been some conspiracy afoot to keep information about the Moon's tenuous atmosphere and the presence of water from going public.

well if you read the article you would have seen that it say's ...

The Moon is no longer the dead, arid, airless and uninhabitable satellite that ALL official sources since the 1920s have insisted it was.

insisting it is a uninhabitable place sounds to me like a conspiracy "afoot" especially since NASA landed Men there and brought back samples and the Russians also had probes land and return samples. there have also been scientific instruments orbiting Luna for how many years now ?

I'm really confused by this line of discussion. Knowing the moon has an atmosphere a billionth as thick as the Earth somehow overturns the impression that it's "dead, arid, airless and uninhabitable"? Knowing what we do about the moons atmosphere, I'm not sure why those adjectives don't still apply. I think it's still dead, for all practical purposes as far as breathing is concerned you might as well call it airless, and therefore uninhabitable, at least by us, though there might be some extremophiles that could live under the surface perhaps.

Or is someone suggesting it's habitable because now that we know it has an atmosphere we can breathe there? Is that the implication?

www.wordwebonline.com...

Adjective: uninhabitable `ún-in'ha-bi-tu-bul
1. Not fit for habitation
"Even today we admit that many areas of the earth are uninhabitable"

If some areas of the Earth are considered uninhabitable, I don't see how the moon can be considered habitable.

Of course we can built an artificial habitat anywhere, even in outer space, such as the space station, but that doesn't mean outer space is habitable, it just means we have technology to build an artificial habitat, right?

So maybe you can enlighten us about why you would quote a source that says the "Moon is no longer the dead, arid, airless and uninhabitable satellite" we thought. Even knowing it has water and an atmosphere I think all three of those are fair characterizations, since the atmosphere that's there is certainly insufficient to render it habitable, right?


[edit on 26-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I'm really confused

yes i agree , you are

how hard is it to understand the the line quoted from the article ? it's been argued and taught for a hundred years that the Moon is dead but with the latest releases of info we know that's not true. it's a pretty simple concept and your confusion is self inflicted from oversimplifications.



[edit on 26-11-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
...how hard is it to understand the the line quoted from the article ? it's been argued and taught for a hundred years that the Moon is dead but with the latest releases of info we know that's not true. it's a pretty simple concept and your confusion is self inflicted from oversimplifications...

That's simply called "the process of science and discovery".

I don't understand your position on this...are you saying that we humans should have always known for a fact that there was an atmosphere and water on the Moon?

Long, long ago, before the proliferation of telescopes, the common person saw the dark spots on the Moon and thought they looked like oceans, thus they concluded that the Moon was inhabited by "Moonmen". Then, later, science and telescopes showed that the Moon was barren and (from the vantage point of Earth) looked lifeless -- no oceans, no forests, no cities.

Therefore, throughout most of the "science age" (since the 1800s), the Moon was thought to be a place that is inhospitable to ALL life -- especially due to the fact that science did not yet know about extremophiles. From the vantage point of the telescopes of the time and the scientific understanding of the time, the Moon was thought to be a totally dry lump of rock. That was a reasonable hypothesis considering the known data. Although some scientists at that time still hypothesized about the possibility that a thin atmosphere could exist.

Then we sent people and probes with scientific instruments to the Moon. Humans studied the data collected by these missions and have now (actually, almost 20 years ago) concluded that the Moon has some water, and it has a thin atmosphere.

THAT'S the process of discovery: (1) Scientists didn't know much about the Moon. (2) they conducted experiments. (3) Through these experiments, they learned something new about the Moon and/or confirmed former hypotheses, such as the presence of an atmosphere.

However, even though the Moon is not technically ENTIRELY dry and lacking an atmosphere, it still qualifies as an "arid, uninhabitable place". Although, as Arbitrageur said above, there may yet be extremophiles that are found to live there. Science has yet to discover these extremophiles, but I'm sure someday they will attempt to look for them...

...and, if they DO find an extremophile on the Moon someday, that will be another chapter in the process of discovery.


[edit on 11/26/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

are you saying that we humans should have always known for a fact that there was an atmosphere and water on the Moon?

why would you even consider i would believe something as absurd as that when you know darn good and well i wouldn't. this is the second time in a row you made up something to make your argument.

do you deny that NASA has gone out of their way to portray the Moon as a completely dead object ?




[edit on 26-11-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


There is a very big difference though between the idea of information being part of the "public record" and information that has actually been "publicized". If the general public have no idea that certain information is actually available in the "public record", then they are going to remain ignorant of that information unless
A: They are informed of it's importance directly by a source they have deemed credible
B: they decide to actually really investigate the subject matter for themselves and find out about it on their own

There are many, many amazing topics related to the lunar sciences and the Apollo program that, while they may be a part of the public record, most definitely have never been made common knowledge, or even close to it. For many people, the simplistic interpretation of evidence they have always been taught and have always believed told them that there is zero atmosphere on the Moon to speak of. I am sure those people (who today most assuredly still comprise the major majority of people on Earth) would find the idea of there being some form of an atmosphere on the Moon - no matter how tenuous the atmosphere may be - to indeed be "ground shaking" news to them, because that fact flies in the face of the absolutes they have been taught and believed to be accurate. That was certainly the general reaction the public had a few short weeks ago when NASA began publicizing the fact that there is water on the Moon, right? Most of this planet was absolutely shocked to hear that announcement. Maybe you weren't shocked by it, but there is no denying the vast majority of people were! The idea of water, atmosphere, and even visible color on the Moon is in direct contradiction to the Dead Moon Dictum that the public has been fed for decades as part of an false-education/propaganda curriculum. For many, many people out there, this stuff IS coming as "ground shaking" news.

Now, I am certainly not going to say that the general public's ignorance of some of these fundamentals is all NASA's fault. In many cases, people's ignorance of these truths is due to the fact that they have only ever have followed "Option A" when they have examined these issues and never bothered to research for themselves to see what evidence is really out there. They relied on agencies like NASA to tell them what was important and what the truth was, and we can clearly see that there were indeed active efforts underway to help keep the public misinformed about even some of the most fundamental of topics like "what is the true color of the Moon?" for example.

When the PTB were initially designing and implementing the Apollo lunar coverup, their overall goal was to present the Moon to the world in such a way that the evidence would be perceived and interpreted by the vast majority of the Earth's population in a way that directly supported the Dead Moon Dictum. The PTB controlled the mass media and there was no Internet, so the world had no choice but to rely on the desperate hope that NASA was telling us the full truth about everything.

The PTB are VERY good at exploiting human psychological weaknesses and "group think" mentality to fit their Dead Moon Dictum, and they know that when trying to keep secrets about our Moon, the "truth" doesn't really matter - the general public's "perception of what the truth is" - that is what matters! Perception is everything - if you control the general public's perception of something, then you control what the society at large generally believes to be true about that subject, whether it is true or not. The idea that the Moon is colorless, waterless, and has no atmosphere has long been the prevailing and erroneous perception the public have been fed, because that perception enforces the Dead Moon Dictum that the PTB want the public to perceive as being the truth.

Cheers,
LC

Originally posted by easynow
...do you deny that NASA has gone out of their way to portray the Moon as a completely dead object ?...

They probably thought it WAS completely dead until they started to gather data about the Moon. It's no coincidence that as soon as they started collecting more data about the Moon (since the 1970s), more information about the Moon has become available to the public.

As science learns more about the Moon, that information becomes available to other scientists and to the public. Don't blame NASA if the public doesn't read science journals (or even layman-friendly publications such as Scientific American, Popular Science, and Discover Magazines).

The idea that the Moon could possibly have an atmosphere is an old idea. It had been speculated upon by scientists a while ago. That speculation then turns into hypotheses, then experiments and instruments are designed that gather the data required to test those hypotheses. By then studying the data collected, those hypotheses could be confirmed.

In this case, the hypotheses was first tested back in 1971 during the Apollo missions. Those experiments mission confirmed the presence of an atmosphere (the fact that they designed instruments to LOOK for an atmosphere suggests that there was serious speculation about its existence.

Interest in the Moon gave way to interest in Mars and beyond in the late 1970s, but further testing done by ground-based observations since then have given us a more detailed picture of that atmosphere.


I'm sure people long ago speculated about water and an atmosphere on the Moon. Speculation is fine -- and is required to formulate hypotheses...but speculation is not a "confirmation of fact".

For example, I speculate that there is life on Mars. My speculation is not based on any specific or direct data -- it's simply a "general" speculation based on what I know about Earth extremophiles and the conditions on Mars. If someday life IS actually found to exist on Mars, I don't expect them to come looking for me to give me the Nobel Prize for my speculation. My speculation was not based on direct evidence.

The people who long ago speculated about an atmosphere on the Moon did not have any direct evidence -- it was pure speculation. That speculation turned into a hypothesis, then experiments were designed to test that hypothesis, then in 1971 those experiments proved the hypothesis.

[edit on 11/26/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

They probably thought it WAS completely dead until they started to gather data about the Moon

so in other words...

you agree that they did go out of their way to to portray the Moon as a completely dead object ?

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

They probably thought it WAS completely dead until they started to gather data about the Moon

so in other words...

you agree that they did go out of their way to to portray the Moon as a completely dead object ?

No. Based on what they could observe from the ground-based instruments of the time, the pre-Apollo speculation of the Moon was pretty much spot-on. They based their speculation on what they could observe, and they did not "go out of their way" to make that portrayal.

And, by the way, based on what we know about the Moon at the moment, the Moon seems to be only a little "less dead" than that previous speculation. It still seems to be pretty much a dead world. Of course, someday we may possibly learn something that will make us change that assessment.

That's the way science works.


[edit on 11/26/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
That's the way science works.

i'm sorry but you're wrong there..... being incapable of coming to a definite conclusion.... does not validate a free flying speculation

Originally posted by easynow

its got "F A K E" written all over it.............

repeat

[edit on 26/11/09 by mcrom901]

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
That's the way science works.

i'm sorry but you're wrong there..... being incapable of coming to a definite conclusion.... does not validate a free flying speculation

Science can only base a conclusion on the data at hand. It may be true that they don't have all of the data, but they can draw conclusions based on what they DO know.

And conclusions are not "fact", even though many people (myself included) are guilty of presenting conclusions as fact. Scientific conclusions are only as good as the data supporting them. Future data may cause a re-assessment of a prior conclusion.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


translation: we will replace "we do not know" with 'what we like'

i dont want to get into the semantics of a scientific method here.... but you very well know whats happenin here.... which we all know as well.... so the icing makes it look much worse....

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Science can only base a conclusion on the data at hand.

i hope you are not referring to the prescribed 'cuff-notes'

not to mention the playboy pix.......

reply to post by mcrom901

I'm sure there are plenty of "politics" involved with the scientific method, but that doesn't necessarily prove that NASA intentionally hid the "truth" about the Moon having an incredibly tenuous atmosphere.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
That's the way science works.

That is not the way science works though. What you are describing is the way pure science is SUPPOSED to work in a perfect world where nobody is being forced to hide any discoveries from the public.

Most of "what we know about the Moon at the moment..." is based upon evidence that NASA has been allowed to provide us over the decades. Not telling the public that certain evidence even exists is the very first step one would take to cover that evidence up, and the fact is NASA was (and is) legally obligated to hide and deny certain evidence that could be deemed to threaten "National Security".

During the Apollo era for example, NASA had their own incredibly wide interpretation of Executive Order 10501 and the definition of the term "National Defense" to follow, and NASA's version of that particular Executive Order forced them to paint a broad "classified" brushstroke over just about anything that could be deemed controversial at all - and certainly forced them to cover-up anything related to the discovery of extra-terrestrial life (past or present).

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10501
SAFEGUARDING OFFICIAL INFORMATION IN THE INTERESTS OF THE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES
Here is a link to the original 10501 Executive Order from 1953 (Eisenhower Admin.)
www.fas.org...

And here is NASA's Apollo-era interpretation of EO 10501, from the "NASA Security Classification Criteria and Guidelines" (doc NHB 1640.4), dated July 1st, 1966.

1. Executive Order 10501 requires that NASA classify certain types of 'official information' in the interests of national defense. Within the context of this Handbook:
a. The term 'official information' is defined as information which is owned by, produced by, or is subject to the control of the United States Government;
b. The term 'national defense' is interpreted in a broad sense to include not only considerations of military defense but also economic and political factors having bearing on the national defense posture."

By being made to interpret "National Defense" so that national security classification considerations had to take into account military, economic, and political factors, (which by default means geo-military, geo-economic, and geo-political factors), NASA had little choice but to ensure the upcoming Apollo missions would not reveal to the public ANY evidence of past or present extra-terrestrial life they might find in space or on the Moon. The now-famed Brookings Institute Report findings published in 1961 provided some earlier framework behind why it was deemed advisable to cover up any incredible discoveries like that, and NASA's version of 10501 solidified that framework prior to the Apollo program ever even leaving the ground.

Here is a link to the online version of NASA document HHR-32
NASA Office of Defense Affairs: The First Five Years
Chapter 14 - NASA SECURITY CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM.
This chapter deals specifically with the discussion surrounding NASA's adoption of their modified EO 10501 National Security interpretation in 1966, and is quite an interesting read IMO.
history.nasa.gov...

So, why should we trust NASA to tell us what they have discovered at all? How many "unannounced" discoveries have turned into "classified" discoveries over the years? How many lies have we been told? The answer is that we will never know unless they actually admit to hiding things from us (such is the way security classification and compartmentalization protocols tend to work!). With NASA's interpretation of 10501 to follow during the Apollo era, it would have been absolutely illegal for NASA to reveal something as incredible and profound as the existence of extra-terrestrial life to the public! It still is today! That is a very scary, but very real FACT.

Cheers,
LC