UFOs or Space Junk Near the Surface of the Moon?

reply to post by Pimander


You think a 20 mile big spaceship would go undetected, like 5 times, all about exactly the same size, movement? Or does it suggest something on the lens? All acting the same way, moving the same direction, with no abrupt direction change, different speeds. Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice (or five times) shame on you.

reply to post by Thundersmurf

Originally posted by Thundersmurf

I don't think the term 'swamp gas' is being used as an actual excuse. It more refers to the typical explanations to expect from people.

Exactly.


...but it never is.
Reread my 6 months old post, which you quoted in it's entirety.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by ThinkingCap

Some great evidence. It appears that the debunkers cannot shout swamp gas or missile, so this thread stays very quiet.

So I give this thread a bump, a flag, and a star.

In the short time that I have been on ATS, I have seen the term 'swamp gas' quite a few times. I have not once, seen it stated by anyone who was giving any effort to actually debunk. The only people who ever use that term, are those who are making a very weak attempt to discredit debunkers, or those who are trying to be funny. Regardless of which reason, it fails every time.

That is not a typical explanation that should be expected from someone who is actually attempting to debunk anything. It is no more than a weak method used by blind believers, in an attempt to discredit debunkers, long before anyone even tries to debunk.



reply to post by Illustronic

Originally posted by Illustronic

Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice (or five times) shame on you.

Just in case I am missing the sarcasm, I will apologize now.

Do you realize that you have that backwards?

Even if you didn't realize it at the time of posting, I think you will realize it now after re-reading that phrase. Twice is bad enough, but especially five times: If you let someone fool you 5 times, there is no one to blame but yourself.

reply to post by Illustronic

There's no need to be so rude sunbeam. Keep your trousers on.

I'm not saying anything about a space ship, you are. I admit I don't know what this is. How often do folks disingenuously throw in crap like that to distract from the actual point at issue?

Unlike you, I'm not making unproven claims and assuming that I don't have to prove them. Is it just me or do other members see the blatant double standards that certain members think are OK on ATS? How often do you see so called skeptics saying, "you're making the claim so the onus is on you to prove it"? Well I'm being a skeptic here. Can you reproduce that footage if it's so obvious to you what it is?

You're the one making the claim. The onus is on you to prove it. Otherwise it's just one of the ideas thrown in to the pot on this thread.

I'm saying nobody - and I mean NOBODY despite challenging people to do so months ago - has managed to reproduce footage like that with droplets on a lens. It might well be something on the lens but there is no proof so far. As a TRUE SKEPTIC, I'm not happy with assertions from the ATS squadron of "experts".

P.S. I know some of you really are experts on certain topics. I am too. However, I strongly suspect that you'd still ask me for proof if I made a claim. Double standards are not really what denying ignorance are all about.

reply to post by Pimander


But there is a couple of things, in this thread and the 'Leaving the Moon' thread, (two different videos albeit the same thing) thread that is consistent, and that is the same anomalies are applicable, and that is both speed and the direction of travel is the same, right to left. That makes the anomaly in all cases visually more of a camera issue.

Someone with a >10" telescope needs to step up here.

Originally posted by Illustronic
Or does it suggest something on the lens? All acting the same way, moving the same direction, with no abrupt direction change, different speeds.

Two separate videos with the same "something" on the lens? The water droplets theory just doesn't hold water...

I have no idea what it could be, but its a cool video...

This was proven to be lens artifacts:


The UFOs are always in the same spot on the screen, and they move with the camera.

Thank you. Bloody hell that took a while.

[size=10]AT LAST!

Originally posted by ThinkingCap
Some great evidence. It appears that the debunkers cannot shout swamp gas or missile, so this thread stays very quiet.

So I give this thread a bump, a flag, and a star.

The reason we stay quiet is because if we dont have an explanation, we wait to see how things progess, if any more news comes out. Thats how science works. You dont rush to conclusions. Unlike you guys who are so desperate for your imaginations to come true that you believe anything anyone posts without thinking about how ludicrous what your suggesting is.. Remember, its better to be skeptical at first.