Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.

reply to post by captaincosmic

I think wee need to develop our own space program incorporating putting a satellite in to orbit

How would wee organize and pay for our space program ?

A moon rover mission dropped on the darkside so we can put to bed the subject once and for all

We have pictures , not sure what a rover could add .
www.space.com...

I understand that anonymous are going to deploy their own satellite to get round the impending sensorship of the net.

I'd love to see a link for that

the sad thing is no matter how many images/videos or first person testimony we will always have to put faith in something that we extremely unlikely to see with our own eyes ....
there a some lucky people in this world that are entrusted with knowledge that is beyond comprehension - for the rest of us our imagination is our only limit.

thanks for the video OP, but I remain unconvinced - I take a lot of photo's and I know that they aren't all perfect, photo editing is the norm if you want your images to look good, NASA aren't necessarily guilty of cover-up – they just want decent looking pictures imo.

Meanwhile, "NASA" has been running rovers on Mars for what, 9 years now?
www.universetoday.com...

...that amounts to more than 31 times beyond the designer’s expectations.

But when the "NASA" sends it's junk to the moon, eg, GRAIL-A/B, the missions are planned to only last 90 days + decommissioning time. And then *CRASH!!!!!!* two new craters on the moon.

Something is *just not right* with that equation.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
As another photographer of many years, I agree with those who say most of what is in that youtube footage is dust. fibers and just general crap that normally finds it's way into photographs.

I grabbed some screenshots of a few of the "UFOs"

Do any of these look like craft that were made by some advanced civilization?

Uhm you'd have to be blind not to see the upper middle photo is clearly the eject/survival-pod from a Corellian Corvette ! Now, we have to get them to admit it was not a diplomatic mission and that the blue-prints for the death-star are most assuredly onbard.

reply to post by tomdham


I, was a freshman in high school and we saw live feeds everyday. No, now that you point it out, it probably was not the very first step live that we were shown...though we saw the recap almost daily.

It was all, so very exciting and I just knew that, the future was here. There was, a war going on, and by the winter of "72", I was in the service of my country, and those childhood memories kinda got lost in the haze.

Maybe, we were just part of the big propaganda machine, but it sure felt real to the, impressionable generation I was a part of.

reply to post by williegreen


You are correct that story is a legend. But it makes a very good allegory for what the human mind is capable of.

I like to think of it like this, especially when regarding anything to do with ETs or UFOs; there are the chiefs who know that some UFO sightings are very real and probably of an ET origin. Than, there are all the rest of the Indians ( meaning the general public ) who may have seen something that makes no sense to them. We being not as knowledgable or wise enough to release the mental block from our minds will never be able to SEE what is actually there. Faith will help you free your mind, and that doesn't mean religion. The Indian in the Christopher Columbus allegory could not see what the chief saw because his mind told him that it was nothing more than a strange wave. It was not until he put his trust in the chief who told him what was actuall causing the strange waves that he was to see what was in reality, right in front of his eyes. His mind had mentally blocked it from his sight so that his eyes could literally not see what was right in front of him.

On another note, several members have asked about the mon mission containing the audio clip of Edgar Mitchell talking about the visitors. " looks like we have some visitors again" ..... " yeah" .... " hardly worth mentioning"...."agreed.

They are talking about extra terrestrials.

Dr. Ed Mitchell is one of the smartest men around. He was the 6th man to walk on the moon during the apallo 14 landing mission, and he has also become one of the most outspoken former NASA astronaughts to endorse the extra terrestrial REALITY. He has said over and over again that aliens have met with humans on earth, and that aliens reside on the moon, and that the universe is teeming with different life forms through out. Life is not spread thinly across the vastness of space, according the Dr. Mitchell, live is abundant everywhere.

Continuing on that thought, I firmly believe that some of the UFOs seen in STS videos and pictures are forms of what some people call "critters". These are thought to be actual life forms that travel through space and frequently come to check out our planets space travelers. Is there any supportive evidence for this? Well, no, not much, other than the short vids and pic of these apparent shape shifting UFOs. But if they aren't some form of ethereal life than the other option is that they are a technology so far beyond what we understand being operated by aliens.

I trust the words of Ed Mitchell. He's really gone out of his way to break free of the general NASA stigma of lie, lie, andlie some more. He's said himself, he's too old for them to come after him for breaking his non disclosure agreement, and he's tired of the public being deceived. If I can paraphrase his words for you all, the human race is ready to be told the truth of our origins. Extra terrestrials have been here before us, and they are here now, the population of the planet deserves to know the truth.

Originally posted by ChristianJihad
reply to post by W3RLIED2

 

IMO the reason you can't see stars in so many NASA photos is because they religiously edit them out.

Hm, if this is the case would it not be logical to conclude that they either edited those ufos in or the ufos are there and NASA want us to see them ?

Thanks for the link by the way

That seems un likely. The picture enhancements done by Luna show very distinctly how NASA smudges out pieces of pictures that they don't want the public to see. I haven't seen any evidence that suggests they add in anomalies.

reply to post by gortex


A facebook page with a paypal donate link added called fly me to the moon. If branson can do it then why not an independant. There are lots of people with surplus cash in the world, it only takes one who likes the idea to buy into an independant space program.

I don't trust anything NASA comes up with, they seem sneaky for some reason, probably driven by the iffy military industrial complex.

reply to post by piotrburz


Piotrburz,
thank you for taking the time to at least explain your theories of film atrefacts.
I am still on the fence about this as I hear as many people shout "dust particles" as shout UFO's.
I suspect that dust in the nearground cannot show up when the camera lens is focussed on distant object.
In order for this to occur the lens aperture would have to be massive.

dust particles, air bubbles chemical drops sticking to the film during dev are all possibilities.
I have watched much of LC's work on his channel and even if you could explain these few anomalies away as dust, he has hundreds more.

His vids are very intriguing and well produced (for me aat least) and he also he posts his e-mail address in his channel information blog so you can contact him directly if you wish. I think he is in Canada if I remember correctly,

PEACE,
RK

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
I am still on the fence about this as I hear as many people shout "dust particles" as shout UFO's.

The fact that it's the photographers shouting "dust particles", and almost everyone else shouting "UFOs" should tell you something. Who do you think would be more likely to recognize dust particles?

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
I suspect that dust in the nearground cannot show up when the camera lens is focussed on distant object.
In order for this to occur the lens aperture would have to be massive.

And what about when the negatives are being scanned? Where would the focus be then?

By the way, the aperture would have to be "tiny", not massive for dust in the near ground to be in focus when the lens is focused on a distant object.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

The fact that it's the photographers shouting "dust particles",

People can claim to be anything on the internet.

Anyhow, I've worked out the dust-particle theory of lunar UFO debunking, it goes thusly: Dust particles exist, therefore lunar UFOs are dust particles.

It is similiar to the Film flaw theory of lunar UFO debunking, it goes thusly: Film Flaws exist, therefore lunar UFOs are films flaws.

*Both of these theories work best if posted several times into a single thread, accompanied by quotes from sources and insults including various implications of stupidity for those who would deign to disagree.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
People can claim to be anything on the internet.

It cuts both ways. Why should people making "hard to believe" claims be taken at their word, and others who claim that they do something that is not so hard to believe (like being a photographer) not be taken at their word, especially if those people (like myself for example) who have posted plenty of proof that they are photographers?

It sounds like you have double standards, and you just believe whatever does not conflict with your view of what the world should be like.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Anyhow, I've worked out the dust-particle theory of lunar UFO debunking, it goes thusly: Dust particles exist, therefore lunar UFOs are dust particles.

It is similiar to the Film flaw theory of lunar UFO debunking, it goes thusly: Film Flaws exist, therefore lunar UFOs are films flaws.

And if it's obviously a dust particle, we should ignore that, and immediately jump to the conclusion that it is something much more strange? How exactly does that help anyone?

Besides, you are trying to make out that because perfectly natural anomalies exist, skeptics like myself generalize and say that "everything must be dust". That is simply not true

reply to post by C.H.U.D.


I'm a skeptic. Just because one does not insult people who believe in strange things, does not make one less of a skeptic. Some of us hold ourselves to a higher standard.

I honestly consider the possibility that strange things might exist, I'm just more active when it comes to producing material for scrutiny than most self-proclaimed skeptics - who tend towards hit-n-run attacks, while avoiding contributing their own finds, material, and research to the field. It is unfortunate.

It is one thing to be skeptical, it is entirely another to use this forum to insult people, even if they disagree with your dust particle theory. Indeed.

Reminds me of Newt gindrich wanting a sex colony on the moon with mexican grandmothers and giving out newt stamps.

reply to post by Exuberant1

It is one thing to be skeptical, it is entirely another to use this forum to insult people, even if they disagree with your dust particle theory. Indeed.

In that case, it behooves you to refute the "dust particle theory" without personally attacking its proponents.

reply to post by DJW001


Why would I refute that theory?

I use it to debunk things all the time. It's lovely.

reply to post by Exuberant1

Why would I refute that theory?

I use it to debunk things all the time. It's lovely.

All right, I'll bite: just out of curiosity, could you please provide a link to a post where you have used the "dust particle theory" to "debunk something?

reply to post by DJW001


I'm concerned with you DJW, it seems you have begun to go off on a tangent.

Perhaps you could stick to discussing the matter at hand, if it isn't too much bother, lord knows it can be.

*Anyhow, the second image in the OP - using your untrained eye, what would you say that object is in that particular image? I'd like to get the opinion of someone less experienced with these matters, a fresh take on things if you will..

That isn't too much to ask. You know it's not.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
And the other thing is, the video automatically puts me off with the crap music, any video using music as the background puts me off, I just cant take it seriously, like it is made for entertainment and not to ask questions or to educate

video with crap music = hoax.

It is that simple.

I totally agree hoaxes are easy to spot. But I do believe that astronauts actually saw some good $hit up there. I just wish they would let it out. As a worldwide society technology is becoming sooooo easy for the average human to deal with that we will all be able to answer these questions soon enough with no fluff from ANY govt.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
*Anyhow, the second image in the OP - using your untrained eye, what would you say that object is in that particular image? I'd like to get the opinion of someone less experienced with these matters, a fresh take on things if you will..

I don't see an object in the second image. Do you mean the white dot? It could be an emulsion flaw.

And someone is trying to play games with us by the way the photo is cropped. A naive person might think one of the two black areas under the white spot might be a shadow because of the way the image is cropped.

However if you look at the original image, it's quite clear that the angle of the sun is all wrong for those black dots to be shadows:



Emulsion defects aren't common, but they do happen, and considering how large that original image is, the defect, if that's what it is, is pretty small. Of course it could be a "moon pigeon" but since there's no shadow I can see, that doesn't seem likely.