Caution: They know much more!!

Seems like an attempt to harvest points to me. The thread contains no conclusive material, links or other information to backup the claims of the author. Save yourself the time and skip this thread guys.

if this thread was about harvesting points then why did you reply...you just helped that guy you accused to harvesting points.....your a very bright one

Originally posted by CookieMonster000
if this thread was about harvesting points then why did you reply...you just helped that guy you accused to harvesting points.....your a very bright one

To voice my opinion on the thread and let others know. Gaining a bit of points was not my motive nor is it as I speak. Since you offer greater knowledge then me obviously, the least you could have done was provided a better rebuttal. Comments greatly appreciated, move on to your corner the dunce cap awaits you.

EDIT: Im also going to take the more grown up approach and refrain from posting anymore on this thread related to your obvious juvenile behavior.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by Linux]

You know...

This whole thing is very similar to the John Tutor hoax.

Doesn't anyone else see the similarities?

I don't mean it's the same people, but the technique of how this is working is similar.

I'm interested to see what direction this goes in, and what "proof" will pop up, if any.

A fun read nonetheless.

The bigger the cover up the less likely it exists.

Wish I would have saved myself the time on this one
kept reading wating for some evidence
since I have a different theory ,but no soup for me

excert taken from william cooper
b4 he was killed
Nasa faked the moon landing, No man has ever ascended much higher than 300 miles, if that high, above the Earth's surface. At or under that altitude the astronauts are beneath the radiation of the Van Allen Belt and the Van Allen Belt shields them from the extreme radiation which permeates space. No man has ever orbited, landed on, or walked upon the moon in any publicly known space program. If man has ever truly been to the moon it has been done in secret and with a far different technology.The tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt, solar radiation, cosmic radiation, Solar flares, temperature control, and many other problems connected with space travel prevent living organisms leaving our atmosphere with our known level of technology.
If you doubt this please explain how the astronauts walked upon the moons surface enclosed in a space suit in full sunlight absorbing a minimum of 265 degrees of heat surrounded by a vacuum.NASA claims the spacesuits were cooled by a water system which was piped around the body, then through a system of coils sheltered from the sun in the backpack. The water was sprayed on the coils causing a coating of ice to form. The ice then supposedly absorbed the tremendous heat collected in the water and evaporated into space.
NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate destroying their own bogus "air conditioning" explanation.
water weighs a little over 62 lbs. per cubic foot. Space and weight capacity were critical given the lift capability of the rockets used in the Apollo Space Program. No such extra water was carried by any mission whatsoever for suits or for cooling the spacecraft.
The Soviet Union planned only one manned moon mission. Soviet cosmonauts related to me that their astronauts were literally COOKED by the extreme radiation in space when sent into high orbit through the Van Allen Belt. The USSR never again attempted to send men into or above the Van Allen Belt. If man could not survive the extreme radiation of the Van Allen Belt how could they put a man on the Moon? The Soviet Union scrapped their Man On The Moon program

the pictures also show different light sources, check the directions of the shadows ,which sugest this was filmed in a studio not on the moon

here is the link ,with alot more info, check it out
not claiming this is fact but logicaly it make good sense
www.hourofthetime.com...


[edit on 16-9-2004 by shadowmirror]

If the moon landings were a hoax, then I am curious how the world's astronomers missed noticing that no vehicles travelled there? If Appollo rockets just orbitted earth, wouldn't someone have noticed?

Life is on Mars take it to the bank, on Mars what you think and see is isn't and what you think and see isn't is. Every mission to Mars including satellite and ground zero missions has shown that life did and does exist. Mars is loaded with life forms, statues, monuments, artifacts and cyborgs. Viking 1 and 2 clearly showed life to exist, Pathfinder/Sojourner clearly showed life to exist, Spirit and Opportunity again clearly shows life to exist. This is not a joke you must train your eyes to see these things Mars is like a giant hologram. If you can find G 5 on the surface of Mars you are now in the ball park. You want proof go back and look at censored and uncensored photos of all ground zero missions. G 5 you can find with the help of Mars Global Surveyor and the 2001 Odessey and European Express. Yes you guessed it the huge letter G the huge numeral 5 is displayed on the surface on Mars. Mars is much more complex and intriguing then ever before imagined possible. Microbes, that is the easy part they positively exist. Water is abundant under the surface and active geysers prove it is under pressure on Mars. I have spent thousands of hours studying and viewing satellite and ground zero photos of the Mars missions. Since Nasa hasn't come out publicly and named the different life forms on Mars I did myself. For starters there are the Marrockies, Sandmaries, Marmies, Microtechs and many many more. Write this down remember what I say life does exist in Mass on Mars. Life that you will understand and life that you won't. Again this is not a joke. Rik Riley

Dear group,

I see that this thread is rather old but hope to breathe new life into it.
What intrigued me when I stumbled on this page [after typing 'hollow moon' in google] was the lack of follow up to the bold assertions made about the moon landings being faked, etc. and that, despite repeated calls by many here for back-up and proof to be sent...were only greeted with the message that we should do our own research.
Well I did just that and I have to say the assertions made weren't bold enough by half.
Now perhaps what I'm about to post has been covered in more recent threads..i confess to being a brand-newbie here and haven't read but a few threads in the forum list..but for the sake of others like me who are just discovering this site may i post the following URL [one of many, many more relevant] sites which should satisfy even the die-hard skeptics..
Site# 1: www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

To date no one has been able to refute what is cited here...nor the fact that the moon indeed is prone to ring like a bell when struck, comprising only 60% of the density that it should for its size and being largely hollow [and hugely magnetic]

From my personal experience, having served two gov'ts in a military/intelligence capacity over the last 20 years I can tell you with hand on heart that i have been asked to cover up, modify, deny and even lie under oath in order to protect the common folk from knowing the 'truth' about a whole range of national and regional security issues..among which Et's/UFO's and other sundry subjects.
As far as truth being stranger than fiction well...The 'hollow moon' is just the tip of the iceberg..

-Sincerely
-Shai

another trollish thread

From my personal experience, having served two gov'ts in a military/intelligence capacity over the last 20 years I can tell you with hand on heart that i have been asked to cover up, modify, deny and even lie under oath in order to protect the common folk from knowing the 'truth' about a whole range of national and regional security issues..among which Et's/UFO's and other sundry subjects.
As far as truth being stranger than fiction well...The 'hollow moon' is just the tip of the iceberg..

-Sincerely
-Shai

It's very frustarting when a newbie comes in and says they have great amts of secret info, that they have come across in their life thru their occupation or whatever, then does not let that info out. No offense, but it just sounds like such BULL! If you have something interesting to say, which is implied by your "tip of the iceburg" comment, then by all means spill the beans. Don't tell me you are worried about the gov't coming after you for passing the sensetive info on cause that is a weak excuse. No one is going to get you for revealing your secrets. Trust me, people make claims to some pretty fantastic stories and experiences from their lives here all the time, so whatever dish you have, I promise it will be nothing we can't handle.

Sorry for blasting away here, but this is the one thing that really gets to me. Telling me you know something, but not telling me what that is only tells me you know nothing.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by mpeake]

Hi all,
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk... this website has alot of information on the alegged hoaxs so check it out.

Originally posted by MBF
I agree that it is stupid to try to find ice on Mercury, it's just hot for it to exist. That's about all that I agree with.

uhhhh... no!!!!!

The dark spots of Mercury are cold as .. well.. as cold as can be..

How can ice survive on Mercury?
As mentioned above, all provinces on Mercury are exposed to the Sun for almost 90 earth-days at a time, and can reach temperatures over 700 K. Additionally, Mercury has no ambient atmosphere and very low gravity. Water ice on the surface of Mercury is exposed directly to vacuum, and will rapidly sublime and escape into space unless it is kept cold at all times. This implies that the ice can never be exposed to direct sunlight. The only locations on the surface of Mercury where this is possible would seem to be near the poles, where the floors of some craters might be deep enough to afford permanent shading. Whether such permanently shadowed craters exist on Mercury is still problematic. The only close-up images we have of Mercury were taken by the Mariner 10 spacecraft on three close passes in 1974 and 1975. The same hemisphere of Mercury was sunlit on each of these passes, so nearly half the planet has never been imaged, and no determination can be made of what polar areas, if any, are permanently shadowed. However, theoretical studies assuming typical crater dimensions show that craters near the poles should have areas which never rise above about 102 K (4) and that even flat surfaces at the poles would not exceed about 167 K (5). Other studies (6-7) also indicate that water ice in polar craters on Mercury could be stable over the age of the solar system.

Have fun!

Osiris

Great Post with great pics!
Thank you so much!
;-)

-Sincerely
-Shai

Originally posted by mpeake

From my personal experience, having served two gov'ts in a military/intelligence capacity over the last 20 years I can tell you with hand on heart that i have been asked to cover up, modify, deny and even lie under oath in order to protect the common folk from knowing the 'truth' about a whole range of national and regional security issues..among which Et's/UFO's and other sundry subjects.
As far as truth being stranger than fiction well...The 'hollow moon' is just the tip of the iceberg..

-Sincerely
-Shai

It's very frustarting when a newbie comes in and says they have great amts of secret info, that they have come across in their life thru their occupation or whatever, then does not let that info out. No offense, but it just sounds like such BULL! If you have something interesting to say, which is implied by your "tip of the iceburg" comment, then by all means spill the beans. Don't tell me you are worried about the gov't coming after you for passing the sensetive info on cause that is a weak excuse. No one is going to get you for revealing your secrets. Trust me, people make claims to some pretty fantastic stories and experiences from their lives here all the time, so whatever dish you have, I promise it will be nothing we can't handle.

Sorry for blasting away here, but this is the one thing that really gets to me. Telling me you know something, but not telling me what that is only tells me you know nothing.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by mpeake]

1st...Did you check out the link or didn't you?
2nd.. I don't beleiev I discussed anything here that wasn't in the public domain already so i ahbe no worries about former employers spooking me and didn't mention any. as it happens i am a public personality of sdrts but only became so after leaving the service, and for much more..um...for lack of a better word, amoral activities. But what is a matter of public record is that I was involved in service for the Israelis...and I would be happy to send you a jpeg via U2U which should allieviate most doubts as to my being who and what I claim to be.
As for doccumentation, graphs and the like..I guess the belgian Air Force tapes which they released in a press conference a decade ago didn't impress you, nor do the recently confirmed sightings by Bolivian, Peruvian and mexican air-force officials under oath and on TV. That you choose not to believe them speaks volumes about cultural bias and antipathy, not to mention about onés general world-view.
Highly decorated officers of your won milrtary service come out with secrets everyday, and at great risk but to what avail? Do you believe your own Colonels?
www.naturalhealthholistic.com...

I said my brief in service was to act as liason between agencies within our military/inyelligence community and to provide analysis based on facts presented on a wide range of issues, Some of which are discussed here.
lots of things came across my desk, none of which I had the rank or power to do much about except provide analysis, based on notes that were often surrendered at the end of our meetings. UFO's were not my main priority..not in the way that preventing bombings, assasinations, and other more earthly, pressing, and immediate concerns were 99% of the time.

As for UFO's ...
You either believe or you don't according to your own lights, isn't that what i said? Not my lights, your lights.
If you want to argue with people, fine..but it doesn't require you impinge their integrity without reason or that you make the kind of assumptions you seem to want to make about me.
This, to my deep chagrin and discomfort is what bugs me most about the so-called expet-sceptics..when unable to refute or explain the evidence they seek to discredit the messenger..as if that will magically whisk away the spirals, the stones, the writings, the ufo pictures or the science which is right in front of them.
Post the definitive site to refute my sites and sources and I will gladly sing your praises as a top notch mind who cannot be BS'd...until then ..well, I leave you with this thought which sums up my view of your views...and that is
.you shouldn't underestimate me, it's not polite.

-Sincerely
-Shai

Shai-

I am not underestimating your intregrity, intellegence, or authenticity. But, do you realize how many people pop in and give a bunch of phonie credentials to look impressive, only to be exposed as a fraud here? It happens all the time, and I am not afraid to call out you or anyone when I feel like it's about to happen again. I admit, I may have jumped the gun and could have goven you a bit more time to authenticate your claims, but I am just tired of people not being held to their claims.

Now, on a side note, I am definitely a beleiver (relatively new to the whole game, which is why I am so reluctant to accept anything that comes from someone who claims to be something of an expert till I've disected them to peices) so I am not one who needs convincing of the existence of EB's. I have just seen too many people rant on about how much they know, only tp be exposed as a fraud, or end up exposing themselves. Not long ago, we had John Lear (who is a registered member of this site) conduct an interview with ATS to answer alot of the questions about his claims regarding ufo's and the gov't coverup. After that interview, he publicly stated that he was a fraud and made up his claims.

Trust me, much of me wants to beleive what you and alot of other people say, because it just backs up what I feel to be true inside of me. I do not have a gov't job, I do not know people on the "inside". I only have the resources avaible to me in the library and on the net, which are 99% BS to begin with. So, I take it seriously when someone has seemingly authentic sounding advise and knowledge, but I don't take it as gospel. I do however, look forward to your posts in the future though. I repsect the fact that you called me out for calling you out

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

No mention of UFO's, but a clear indication of what our capabilities are and the directions we are heading...
Note the mention of laser technology and new nuclear driven vehicles which could make the journey to Mars in under two weeks.
A senior Pentagon official was recently quoted as having been told by the israelis that 'they left me in no doubt they were convinced they needed to prepare for a war in space"... a sentiment echoed by a Pentagon official who briefed Donald Rumsfeld in 2001:
“The ability to utilize space is the cornerstone that supports air power,” said former Israeli Air Force commander Major General Eitan Ben-Eliahu, an ardent space advocate. “Whoever cannot achieve this … will not be in the forefront of modernization.”
Pentagon analysts told US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2001 that warfare in space was a “virtual certainty” in the years ahead. "

I will be glad to provide the links to the Daily Star & Al Jazeera pages , just two of a dozen sites where the complete articles can be read.

;-)
-Shai

can a mod take this thread off the site, it has 6 pointless pages of nothing, 3 of the pages are fighting weather 2 posters are the same person.

Originally posted by mpeake
Shai-

I am not underestimating your intregrity, intellegence, or authenticity. But, do you realize how many people pop in and give a bunch of phonie credentials to look impressive, only to be exposed as a fraud here? It happens all the time, and I am not afraid to call out you or anyone when I feel like it's about to happen again. I admit, I may have jumped the gun and could have goven you a bit more time to authenticate your claims, but I am just tired of people not being held to their claims.

Now, on a side note, I am definitely a beleiver (relatively new to the whole game, which is why I am so reluctant to accept anything that comes from someone who claims to be something of an expert till I've disected them to peices) so I am not one who needs convincing of the existence of EB's. I have just seen too many people rant on about how much they know, only tp be exposed as a fraud, or end up exposing themselves. Not long ago, we had John Lear (who is a registered member of this site) conduct an interview with ATS to answer alot of the questions about his claims regarding ufo's and the gov't coverup. After that interview, he publicly stated that he was a fraud and made up his claims.

Trust me, much of me wants to beleive what you and alot of other people say, because it just backs up what I feel to be true inside of me. I do not have a gov't job, I do not know people on the "inside". I only have the resources avaible to me in the library and on the net, which are 99% BS to begin with. So, I take it seriously when someone has seemingly authentic sounding advise and knowledge, but I don't take it as gospel. I do however, look forward to your posts in the future though. I repsect the fact that you called me out for calling you out

Dear Mpeake,

No harm done and no offense taken. I know there are many out there with all kinds of motives for getting noticed who male bombastic claims and you are quite right to be c autious in accepting every claim and claimant as genuine..especially on a subject so touchy.
When I was in service we had a golden rule when it came to tracing suspects and motives..FTM=follow the money..in other words who gains from this info being accepted as gospel..who gains from the fraud if any, or the coverup.

This explains a great deal of the confusion about credibility of sources, pro and con..are they agents of disinfo or just looking for attention..or do they feel honor bound to fess up, despite stringent protocols against revealing secrets even after retirement...
And only God knows the human heart..
But back to FTM....when one realizes how much time and money is being spent by governments throughout the world to analyse this problem, or deny it exists..the fact that agencies , including those in the EU , the UN, & NATO just to name a few are entirely dedicated to trying to get a grip on this problem and spending millions of funded studies, then one has to believe that there is indeed a serious concern about UFO's among strong military powers.
How many photos and videos of late have authenticated as genuine and unexplainable, just over the last decade alone? Are explanations forthcoming from the scientific community or the powers that be? No. But being old enough to have some sense of the flow of things I am aware that instead of coming up with fairy stories or accusing the beleivers of being head-cases they now stick to 'no comment' policies when asked to expalin the obvious.

If you look at the biblical accounts of god and his angels you will note they have three distinct qualities, also ascribed to them by the Sumerians and virtually every other group claiming contact with ET's over the last 3,000+ years..they are capable of breeding with our females, they lust after gold and need the blood of cattle for sustenance.
There is an unbroken chain of artifacts and artist renderings of these contacts which crosses all cultures and defies conventional explanation....and now even our most advanced and most rational scientists of the physics community are saying they would be most surprised if we haven't been visited or weren't visited soon by life forms their theories say must be out there somewhere.
No one to this day has explained the mystery of the Dogon tribe and how they came to know so much about the density and orbit times of a binary star system invisible to the naked eye. The Dogon claim they were told by the star people that that is where they hailed from. But the traditionalists want you to believ they got that info from french missionaries....almost 100 years before our radio-astronomers discovered sirius b.
It is cultural arrogance to want to disbelieve the dogon, the hopi, the ancient scribes...scribes such as the egyptians who built structures of such precision they cannot be duplicated today.Period.
We have artifacts that cannot be explained and ancienrt maps which could only have been made from aerial observation .
Those nay sayers and skeptics who ignore all this evidence..opne has to ask what is their motivation? To appear cosmopolitan, smarter than your average homo-erectus?
To me a sceptic is one who offers a credible but contrary theory based on a shared set of undisputed facts.
Time after time I see undisputed facts left by the wayside as detractors set out assasinating character or ascribing ulterior motives to the fact bearers.

No one wants to comment on the martian photos released by NASA that shows huge translucent corriidors between martian caverns that NASA cannot explain..nor can any astro-geologist or physicist explain a natural or theoretical process by which these structures could have formed naturally.

No one can explain the Ica stones..nor can they explain the similarities between mayan and egyptian languages..or the out of place artifacts which no one disputes are genuine and which defy every currently accepted theory of how we got here and what we have done over the last 150,000 years..or is it only 12,000?

And still the 'sceptics, those ever so clever, self-deluded guardians of he rational, explainable world harp on in denial..and why?
No wonder we are so poorly regarded by the 'angels' above and no wonder they are reluctant to talk to us as equals...

They say they want the truth and yet iy is beyond obvious that they cannot and do not ever intend to handle it.

I was aked if I fear repurcussions from former superiors and again I say no..what would they possibly be afraid of..my being believed?
There is a series of photos commonly available, even posted here of thos anomalous photos from mars and not a whimper or a sigh from any 'disbeliever', It is like they choose deliberately to ignore anything which falls outside of their narrow little box of disbelief..or that regardless of the evidence they are out to prove themselves top of the cosmic food chain...they enjoy pointing fingers at us 'dummies'for going along with all this sci-fi hocus pocus..

So, did NASA take those pictures just to shine us on? Is the lens found in the pyramids one of satan's little jokes on our archeologists?

When you ask a sceptic what would it take for them to believe what's in front of their eyes what is their common anwer? 'Idon't know". That is, at least the most common one I've heard. When you ask them what source they trust most about these knids of things, many will say the Bible. And I find it odd becuase a great deal of the bible is all about UFO's and off-planet powers interfering with man's destiny.

I logged in to this forum in hopes that rational minds and curious souls were in earnest about sharing and forming some coherent view of what is actually going on, literally in front of our noses..a subject which I only took seriously after seeing officers and superiors far more involved in the nuts and bolts than i scratching their heads over these same artifacts..and radar reports backing up pilot assertions of UFO engagement over our territory.

We had an incident remarkably similar to the Phoenix lights which were seen on CNN..and to date no credible explanation has been forthcoming from the Americans as to what that was all about. We certainly don't think they were flares as was first suggested... and we would know.

It seems to... the vast majority of respondents here do not want to ask the critical questions about the mounting evidence or its logical implications, being more content to be critical of each other.

As i said, you can provide the texts, the stones, the artifacts and the science to support the notion of ET visitation, verified beyond dispute and what do you normally get in response?

Dead Silence..or a comment like the one below yours asking for the thread to be removed because it is 'BS".
One wonders why he joined and then surfed to this particular page..it must have held an attraction. I guess he believes he's smarter than either of.us since he doesn't buy into anything here..but does he provide a site, a source, a coherent rebuttal? No, just a review of the entertainmnet value.
But does he feel better...did that scratch his itch do you think?..make him feel that he's back in control of his destiny?

I wonder....

-Sincerely
-Shai

Originally posted by Shai


To date no one has been able to refute what is cited here...nor the fact that the moon indeed is prone to ring like a bell when struck, comprising only 60% of the density that it should for its size and being largely hollow [and hugely magnetic]

simply because anyone whos used web forums for ..say 4 or more years will have learnt - what a trollish thread looks like.

This guy starts a thread, with out of this world claims, and then on page 6 - page 6!! he still hasnt offered anything as true proff.

Of course people who do as i am now - ie keep the thing alive - just add to its read by number - But my excuse is simple - 6 pages read by countless people - hopefully will read my take on it and learn quick.

I agree that the original poster should have provided source references with his assertions so consider me sympathetic to pleas of yours which fell on deaf ears..
I am new to the forum so i haven't yet formed a real view of who's who and what they may have as a bias..
Having said that, I arrived on this particular forum while searching for mars photos, among other things and I would be most curious to hear what opinion you have of those?

And did you check out of the links I provided in this and other forums?
Do you have an argument with the hollow moon assertions..or the debunking site which proves the initial landings were faked?

My problem with both the initial poster and yourself is that you both seem to come from wildly biased views and making it a personal issue instead of a debate on the nerits of evidence provided.

Show me the evidence, anywhere, that would account for or explain what you are seing with your own eyes in an undoctored, certified NASA foto in the public domain?

If it is biological it is on a scale even bigger than Worm Emperor of Dune..if it is a natural occurrence of causal factors such as climate, sunlight, gravity, intense sub-surface heat it is certainly one that defies theory by any currentlly held model.
The fact that NASA won't explain it, won't even comment speaks volumes to me..maybe not you, but then... why not you?

If it is artificial, as I would be willing to at least entertain as a credible notion given what my own eyes are telling me, then wouldn't that in itself be evidence enough of some folks in power being desperately uncomfortable with us knowing the truth that is out there?

And isn't that what this thread title is all about?
You may be right to ignore the first two pages and everything up to the middle of the third page..but after that one would hope you would've woken up a bit.
It's just an opinion, mind you, so no offense to be taken.

--Sincerely
-Shai