Alien Moon Base Captured By Chang'e-2 Orbiter 2012

Originally posted by m0rphine
I couldn't resist from replying to this in particular. I picked out some parts to read.

You know nothing about the Moon, 'm0rphine'. "Moon rock" turns out to be hunk of wood , and the ordinary scientific community have no clue how the entire body of the Moon looks like.

Your naive attempt to discredit Alex Collier and David Icke is pointless, no matter how hard you try. Forget it 'm0rphine', you will NEVER EVER be able to discredit them. It would be foolish and ridiculous of you if you THINK you can discredit these "Whistleblowers", you can't. But let me guess, you are still too naive to stop your foolish attempts...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
strangewavesky.blogspot.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

reply to post by Anunaki10


Your right David Icke IS Jesus.

I agree, I cant dis-credit that man AT ALL in anyway shape or form, because, he is the son of God and Jesus. Why anyone would doubt that, I DUNNO!

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by Anunaki10

 

are these NASA images really real images? There could be a good chance that NASA may be using a new "Airbrushing" technique.

I have to commend you on (almost) bringing up the only possible argument that is on topic with this thread and that can't be proven one way or the other.

However, the airbrushing technique would have been a very old one, rather than a new one, as the NASA image is from 1967. I have a NASA publication, SP-200, "The Moon as viewed by Lunar Orbiter" from 1970. I took a look at the LO-3085 image in the book this morning just to be sure there was no question. There is no moon base on the image in the publication.

"If" someone at NASA doctored the image, it would have been prior to 1970.

Not as far back as 1970, but by 1977 I was professionally airbrushing photographic prints myself (real photo retouching), the tools and media were there and can be controlled to a near photographic resolution, which for a typical negative is around 2600 dpi. But it is a very tedious process to do undetected even in grayscale, much more difficult in full color, and the fine brush needs to have a clear airflow, with near zero moisture from the air source. Mind numbing without a CO2 air source, even with moisture traps an air compressor is going to create condensation in your tubes, that one drop can ruin hours of work while the paint colors you mixed has dried on the palette.

One would have to be very skilled with state of the art equipment and lots of time to airbrush what Photoshop can do in digital image manipulation today in about a half an hour, but 10's of resolutions courser than traditional methods. You see those car airbrushed paint jobs that a skilled applicator would charge you 5 figures for a custom job, is like a fire hose with half the air pressure compared to a dentist tool in comparison. The stream of paint flowing from a fine airbrush can be measured in microns, and I can sign my name with one finer than a very sharp very hard pencil can do, though it always looks funny with no back pressure to touch helping your guidance.

Are we still talking about the Chang'e 2 image that isn't?

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
However, the airbrushing technique would have been a very old one, rather than a new one, as the NASA image is from 1967.

You obviously don't know about the advanced computer techniques, and other new techniques 'Zarniwoop', a lot has happened since 1967, and tools and machines and computers have improved and are more advanced than in 1967. Commodore 64 didn't even exist in 1967. Don't you know about technology? Don't you know about photo manipulation programs? I think it's time for you to wake up.

reply to post by Anunaki10


I'm afraid you have faulty information taking you for a ride you enjoy. If you used half of the enthusiasm to learn science as you devote to fantasy some college would accept you to a freshman entry for something.

Now you are getting heated up and making wild stabs in anger, I suggest you have a beer and count to ten before you continue this thread to the next millennium. Maybe play a game of competitive darts, see how many you blindly throw actually stick in real life. Kind of judge your skill level at something anyway!

Originally posted by Illustronic
I'm afraid you have faulty information taking you for a ride you enjoy. If you used half of the enthusiasm to learn science as you devote to fantasy some college would accept you to a freshman entry for something. Now you are getting heated up and making wild stabs in anger, I suggest you have a beer and count to ten before you continue this thread to the next millennium. Maybe play a game of competitive darts, see how many you blindly throw actually stick in real life. Kind of judge your skill level at something anyway!

Oh please stop wasting your time with your useless bs, will ya

reply to post by Illustronic

Not as far back as 1970, but by 1977 I was professionally airbrushing photographic prints myself

Hey Illustronic, we have something in common!



(we are both old!)

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by TimesUp

 

no one can prove that man-made or alien-made structures do not exist on the moon.

Ah... but that was not the premise of this thread. The thread was intended to fool people into thinking that the image in the video was somehow from Chang'e 2, which has been thoroughly debunkitized.

If the video forgot all about Chang'e 2 and proposed that the moon base was found in a never-before-seen version of LO-3085, and that NASA had released a doctored image to the public, then that would be something worth some discussion. However, there is no way to prove this unless there is something better than a youtube video of a most-likely Photoshopped version of LO-3085.

I'd love to see some good proof of NASA doctoring moon images, but this one aint it.

I get your point and you are correct.
However, this was dubunked on like page 2 or something, but the conversation become hostile by putting down the idea that this could happen (regardless if the images are fake).
I am defending the idea that there could be structures on the moon for the simple fact of defense for some of the closed minded dogma that this hoax-thread has born.

....
That I think fosters "non-learning" by placing a wall in front of individuals that have a desire to "ponder" and explore the hidden truths about what really happened and is happening on the moon.

reply to post by Zarniwoop


I prefer to call it mature. My struggle sometimes is typing maturely. But as we say in the old school, garbage in garbage out.

There are 3 variables in every job, and you only get two of them. Time, quality, price. you can't get all 3 the way you wish, one has to give.

reply to post by TimesUp

I am defending the idea that there could be structures on the moon for the simple fact of defense for some of the closed minded dogma that this hoax-thread has born.

I agree with you that there could definitely be structures on the moon.

Start a new thread with some good evidence and arguments and don't let those you view as closed-minded get you down. You need to have thick skin if you believe in things a very small portion of the population believes in.

But, be prepared to have some backup to your assertions and don't ever let it get hostile.

reply to post by Illustronic

There are 3 variables in every job, and you only get two of them. Time, quality, price. you can't get all 3 the way you wish, one has to give.

That explains the outcome of every home improvement project I've ever done!

Can we put this baby to rest now?

beeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.....

reply to post by Anunaki10


You really are a #ing idiot, aren't you.

J. William Middendorf did not give the Dutch a real moon rock. So? This some how makes the moon landings fake? Why would they waste their findings on the Dutch?

Why did you spend so much time arguing that the "Neil Armstrong recording" was real, then?

www.cbc.ca...

During a showing in 2006, a space expert told the Rijksmuseum it was unlikely that NASA would have handed out moon rocks so shortly after Apollo returned to Earth.

Here are real moon rocks weirdo.

klabs.org...

klabs.org...

news.sciencemag.org...

moon rocks under microscope


I find it hilarious that "i know little about the moon," by stating the basic scientific widely accepted hypothesis for moon formation. You are discrediting the entire scientific community and saying that David Icke knows better.

What the # has David Icke ever done?

From his Wiki:

David Vaughan Icke (pronounced /aɪk/, or IKE, born 29 April 1952) is an English writer and public speaker,

Oh a writer and a speaker. Don't writers create stories?
Where is his scientific background?

Originally posted by Illustronic
I'm afraid you have faulty information taking you for a ride you enjoy. If you used half of the enthusiasm to learn science as you devote to fantasy some college would accept you to a freshman entry for something.

Now you are getting heated up and making wild stabs in anger, I suggest you have a beer and count to ten before you continue this thread to the next millennium. Maybe play a game of competitive darts, see how many you blindly throw actually stick in real life. Kind of judge your skill level at something anyway!

Still wasting your time with your "Dungeons and Dragons"-kid- game? This is a place for adults, not kids. You don't know what you're talking about.

Don't worry Illustronic, I have no idea why he keeps mentioning "dungeons and dragons" either.

Originally posted by Illustronic
Not as far back as 1970, but by 1977 I was professionally airbrushing photographic prints myself (real photo retouching), the tools and media were there and can be controlled to a near photographic resolution, which for a typical negative is around 2600 dpi. But it is a very tedious process to do undetected even in grayscale, much more difficult in full color, and the fine brush needs to have a clear airflow, with near zero moisture from the air source. Mind numbing without a CO2 air source, even with moisture traps an air compressor is going to create condensation in your tubes, that one drop can ruin hours of work while the paint colors you mixed has dried on the palette.

One would have to be very skilled with state of the art equipment and lots of time to airbrush what Photoshop can do in digital image manipulation today in about a half an hour, but 10's of resolutions courser than traditional methods. You see those car airbrushed paint jobs that a skilled applicator would charge you 5 figures for a custom job, is like a fire hose with half the air pressure compared to a dentist tool in comparison. The stream of paint flowing from a fine airbrush can be measured in microns, and I can sign my name with one finer than a very sharp very hard pencil can do, though it always looks funny with no back pressure to touch helping your guidance.

If you really was a professional Airbrusher then you may know that NASA airbrush anomalies out of their photos. I doubt you ever was an airbrusher, i think you are lying 'Illustronic'.

Originally posted by m0rphine
Don't worry Illustronic, I have no idea why he keeps mentioning "dungeons and dragons" either.

Because you have no clue what's going on 'm0rphine'...

Originally posted by m0rphine
I find it hilarious that "i know little about the moon," by stating the basic scientific widely accepted hypothesis for moon formation.

Keep laughing at yourself, ya that's right, you really make a fool out of yourself, you have shown you know nothing about the Moon.

What the # has David Icke ever done?

Icke is an excellent researcher who also interview people who are "in the know". www.youtube.com...

David Icke - Who built the Moon? Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3

www.youtube.com...

How about the other "Whistleblowers"? Are you going to falsely claim they are liars too?

Originally posted by Anunaki10

Keep laughing at yourself, ya that's right, you really make a fool out of yourself, you have shown you know nothing about the Moon.

I'm laughing at you, and everyone who has replied to you in this thread thinks you are a moron.

Icke is an excellent researcher who also interview people who are "in the know". www.youtube.com...

He's a hoaxer, and not a good one.

How about the other "Whistleblowers"? Are you going to falsely claim they are liars too?

If I told you I know people on the inside, would you believe me?
Why would you believe anyone else just because they make things up? It's because you're an idiot.

Originally posted by Anunaki10

Originally posted by m0rphine
Don't worry Illustronic, I have no idea why he keeps mentioning "dungeons and dragons" either.

Because you have no clue what's going on 'm0rphine'...

I'm pretty sure it's because you're either foreign/borderline retarded, or a combination of the two, and you make no sense and continue to say stupid things.