SyFy Channel July 20, "ALIENS ON THE MOON: THE TRUTH EXPOSED"

a reply to: JimOberg

Oberg's 12-page PDF: www.jamesoberg.com... from ATS www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oberg: “People see things at the limits of…. From their imaginations and from their fears.”
What fears? What one sees on the videos is not the result of one's imagination. Well, some individuals do have active imaginations but we're talking about looking a videos' content and determining based on logic, common sense and reason and one's knowledge of the subject matter that not all that is seen are ice crystals, shuttle debris and dumps, etc. Some of the objects seen are, Unidentified Space Anomalies or what are called on Earth UFOs. Therefore your comment can be considered meaningless psychological pap not connected with the reality triggered by what is seen in the videos

11:50 Gemini-7 “have a bogey”
jeo: Borman’s OWN later words saying it WAS the booster are not shown in order to use the words of somebody else who wasn’t there.

Yet, you (Oberg) say it's okay for someone who wasn't there to offer their opinion. Dr Roach wasn't "there" either nor NASA Mission Control experts, and most everybody else!
"Jeo: I disagree. The case for the Titan booster has been accepted by Dr. Franklin Roach and by NASA Mission Control experts, and most everybody else."

Now we have crossed the barriers from ego to belief. When that happens it easily shows egotistical people have no belief, even in what they see in front of them.

There are many more complex things that people do and are not aware of, so I don't worry about little things like disbelief in something that is there. Also, they don't pile up the evidence or make correlation, they just stay arguing one small point after each other instead of taking associations into consideration. If they were a Statistical Analyst they would now that after three or more correlations the odds go up through the roof - therefore we were visited.

In this visitation, the aliens came down to earth 1,000s of years ago, possibly knowing about earth for millions of years. The visitation 1,000s of years ago was unlike the visitation of the 20th century. Back then in ancient times, they literally parked on the 'white house lawn' and mingled with society. For hunderds of years they shape shifted all over the earth, bringing people to so much awe they immediately called them gods and worshiped them. That is why they worshiped cows with human body's, and much more. In the 20th century we got to know the Greys, but in ancient times they knew the Greys and the beings who created the Greys, who appear to be shape shifting giants.

Think about a theory I have called the 'Valuable Real Estate Theory'. When a forgotten or little known island paradise is found on Earth, or a beach in Mexico that was underdeveloped, with in a few years of discovery, it rapidly becomes a playground for the rich, then it gets overdeveloped and built up with hotels and casinos.

In our Solar System we have about 3-4 places that a highly developed space-faring civilization would covet. First they'd go for the uninhabited locations. Mars, the Moon, a satellite of Jupiter with a rocky crust (Europa?).

They'd build bases there, until the habitable parts of the Moon and Mars were just packed with structures, bases, habitats (if they were the kind that went exploring for that kind of thing).

So, because of that, and little to no reason to 'hide', a concept gotten from TV and Movie scriptwriters, we'd see them everywhere on those places.

We don't. This means they have not stumbled upon the Solar System, (or that there are no space-faring civilizations in our Galaxy).

We wouldn't be looking for little blurry artifacts that NASA was trying to rub out. (OTOH, I do believe NASA edits images, why it's not clear).

originally posted by: greyer
Now we have crossed the barriers from ego to belief. When that happens it easily shows egotistical people have no belief, even in what they see in front of them.

Your reply is balderdash. Barriers? What barriers? Who set them up and for what purpose and who is enforcing them? You make blanket statements.

There are many more complex things that people do and are not aware of, so I don't worry about little things like disbelief in something that is there. Also, they don't pile up the evidence or make correlation, they just stay arguing one small point after each other instead of taking associations into consideration. If they were a Statistical Analyst they would now that after three or more correlations the odds go up through the roof - therefore we were visited.

In this visitation, the aliens came down to earth 1,000s of years ago, possibly knowing about earth for millions of years. The visitation 1,000s of years ago was unlike the visitation of the 20th century. Back then in ancient times, they literally parked on the 'white house lawn' and mingled with society. For hunderds of years they shape shifted all over the earth, bringing people to so much awe they immediately called them gods and worshiped them. That is why they worshiped cows with human body's, and much more. In the 20th century we got to know the Greys, but in ancient times they knew the Greys and the beings who created the Greys, who appear to be shape shifting giants.

Where do you get this stuff from? Since you sound as if you have access to hidden knowledge I'm sure that those members that are interested in this thread would love to peruse your sources so please provide links to them.

originally posted by: greyer
If they were a Statistical Analyst they would now that after three or more correlations the odds go up through the roof - therefore we were visited.

As someone who knows a thing or two about statistical analysis, I can tell you that this statement makes no sense whatsoever.

originally posted by: JimOberg
Besides, the author, George Leonard, repudiated his own book, asked people to stop criticizing it, and expressed hope everybody would just forget they had ever seen it. So he came to his senses and was embarrassed by his earlier foolishness.

Here's his letter:

originally posted by: Uggielicious
Your reply is balderdash. Barriers? What barriers? Who set them up and for what purpose and who is enforcing them? You make blanket statements.

Why do you hate poetry so much? Ok, if not poetry why do you hate abstract thinking so much? Ok, if not abstract thinking why do you hate creative writing so much?

This is a matter of the truth. And even when the truth is Exposed people still don't believe what they see. Well I don't care about that because for many years I exhausted myself to learn the mysterious of the earth. It turned out that much of the mysterious on earth is mysterious because people Lied, so it is their and amazing, but the masses are like suckers in this case, because they are being tricked.

So you are being lied to and you are believing the lies. That is what all this comes down to. I don't blame you. I mean first we believe the lie about Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, then around 5 years old we learn it is a lie. Well as an adult, I understand how you don't see the lies that are being told to you. But it is the exact same thing as those holidays - it is all not reality, but a lie. Specifically the Romans going back to the ancients in the land of Sumer, starting 3,000 years ago there was a choice to falsify reality for the future generations, so when aliens visited again as they did 1,000s of year ago, more of a follow up, we were immediately lied to about that and nobody seems to be even close to letting go of those lies, in fact they were closer decades ago.

When you finally learn the truth, it will be like crossing a barrier, psychologically of course.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: greyer
If they were a Statistical Analyst they would now that after three or more correlations the odds go up through the roof - therefore we were visited.

As someone who knows a thing or two about statistical analysis, I can tell you that this statement makes no sense whatsoever.

Now this is what the educated people say on television - they straight up lie, but it is more than a lie. It is an egotistical approach as a result of being lied to. I can give examples if you like, but some people (like you) say things that are so far away from the truth, as if the truth is on another planet. Sometimes they do it to kind of start a revolution. Sometimes they do it to keep other people safe. Sometimes they do it because they have indeed been lied to and it wasn't easy to find the truth.

I will give you an example to show all the others reading this that you are delusional and saying things to me that do not make any sense whatsoever, but they are just an embarrassing attack against my knowledge, so in fact you are just judging me like egotistical people do, and those people are very slow to learn that the ego is not a good judge at all, but a prideful ego is always wrong.

The Dead Sea Scrolls:

They were found in caves by a place called Qumran. At first nobody believed they were from a peoples living in Qumran because they didn't know for sure. Well, on the scrolls themselves it was written that the Essenes came from Qumran. That is two correlating pieces of information! But you still say that it doesn't bring up the chances of the scrolls actually being from Qumran, because correlations do not bring up probability or any evidence at all. See how stupid that sounds?
But, the educated people still didn't believe that the scrolls were written by the Essenes who came from Qumran because there was enough evidence to say for sure. Then they found the burial grounds, and saw from carbon dating that the earliest burials were all males, an important piece of information because it was written the Essenes were an all male religious group of people. So now the educated people tell us that indeed the scrolls are from the Essenes in ancient Qumran. It took them 3 correlating evidences to believe that something was the truth.

Now why did you argue with me for saying that the more correlating evidences found on something mysterious, the more probability it will be true? In fact since you claim to be so smart, can you even clearly explain yourself as to why I am wrong and you are right?

Sometimes, a statistical experiment can have n possible outcomes, each of which is equally likely. Suppose a subset of r outcomes are classified as "successful" outcomes.

The probability that the experiment results in a successful outcome (S) is:

P(S) = ( Number of successful outcomes ) / ( Total number of equally likely outcomes ) = r / n

There were aliens on the moon. Neil Armstrong. Last name, first initial spelled backword with first name = Neil A = AlieN

originally posted by: greyer
As someone who knows a thing or two about statistical analysis, I can tell you that this statement makes no sense whatsoever.

Now this is what the educated people say on television - they straight up lie, but it is more than a lie. It is an egotistical approach as a result of being lied to.

Nope - it's what someone who taught statistics at undergraduate level says. It's what someone who understands what a correlation coefficient is, how it is calculated and how i can be used appropriately and inappropriately. The example you gave was inappropriate.

I can give examples if you like, but some people (like you) say things that are so far away from the truth, as if the truth is on another planet. Sometimes they do it to kind of start a revolution. Sometimes they do it to keep other people safe. Sometimes they do it because they have indeed been lied to and it wasn't easy to find the truth.

Numbers don't lie. people do.

I will give you an example to show all the others reading this that you are delusional and saying things to me that do not make any sense whatsoever, but they are just an embarrassing attack against my knowledge, so in fact you are just judging me like egotistical people do, and those people are very slow to learn that the ego is not a good judge at all, but a prideful ego is always wrong.

I would suggest that your ego has been insulted and you don't like it. Your lack of knowledge is your problem, not mine, and you can do something about that. You not understanding something does not equate to me being wrong.

The Dead Sea Scrolls:

They were found in caves by a place called Qumran. At first nobody believed they were from a peoples living in Qumran because they didn't know for sure. Well, on the scrolls themselves it was written that the Essenes came from Qumran. That is two correlating pieces of information!

No, they are co-incident references, not a statistical correlation. They do not prove anything other than something was written on something else.

But you still say that it doesn't bring up the chances of the scrolls actually being from Qumran, because correlations do not bring up probability or any evidence at all. See how stupid that sounds?

Yes, what you have written does sound stupid, because correlations do not bring up probability, what you you do is use probability distributions to determine whether a series of measured events are related or not.

But, the educated people still didn't believe that the scrolls were written by the Essenes who came from Qumran because there was enough evidence to say for sure. Then they found the burial grounds, and saw from carbon dating that the earliest burials were all males, an important piece of information because it was written the Essenes were an all male religious group of people. So now the educated people tell us that indeed the scrolls are from the Essenes in ancient Qumran. It took them 3 correlating evidences to believe that something was the truth.

It took those, not 'them'. Those educated people would be citing references and measurements and analyses - they would not be taking the word of someone without checking, which is what you are doing. The Dead Sea scrolls are not my area of expertise, neither are they relevant to this thread, but when i want to know about them I'll read the research people have done, not swallow your version just because you're trying to drown out the opposition.

Now why did you argue with me for saying that the more correlating evidences found on something mysterious, the more probability it will be true? In fact since you claim to be so smart, can you even clearly explain yourself as to why I am wrong and you are right?

Because you used the term correlate incorrectly in terms of statistical analysis. That is as simple as it gets.

Sometimes, a statistical experiment can have n possible outcomes, each of which is equally likely. Suppose a subset of r outcomes are classified as "successful" outcomes.

The probability that the experiment results in a successful outcome (S) is:

P(S) = ( Number of successful outcomes ) / ( Total number of equally likely outcomes ) = r / n

That is a general discussion of the nature of probability. It is not how a correlation coefficient is calculated or interpreted.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Yes, what you have written does sound stupid, because correlations do not bring up probability, what you you do is use probability distributions to determine whether a series of measured events are related or not.

Because you used the term correlate incorrectly in terms of statistical analysis. That is as simple as it gets.

Lol I wish everyone was here to see that. In telling me why you disagreed, all you did was demonstrate that you are playing a game of words.

I said earlier to another that creative writing, poetry, abstract thinking, heck even the ancient texts, are not picky over words and terminology. Your dumb terminology is saying the exact same thing in different words. That is pathetic. it is a basic fact that you are acting more stupid because you refuse to understand that I am saying the same thing in different words. That is the most stupid thing in the world, that you would assume all the people talking to you have to say the exact same words that you would use. Now it is people like you who say that the ancient text are meant word for word, and that is part of the whole delusion of your reality that I was talking about earlier.

originally posted by: greyer

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Yes, what you have written does sound stupid, because correlations do not bring up probability, what you you do is use probability distributions to determine whether a series of measured events are related or not.

Because you used the term correlate incorrectly in terms of statistical analysis. That is as simple as it gets.

Lol I wish everyone was here to see that. In telling me why you disagreed, all you did was demonstrate that you are playing a game of words.

I said earlier to another that creative writing, poetry, abstract thinking, heck even the ancient texts, are not picky over words and terminology. Your dumb terminology is saying the exact same thing in different words. That is pathetic. it is a basic fact that you are acting more stupid because you refuse to understand that I am saying the same thing in different words. That is the most stupid thing in the world, that you would assume all the people talking to you have to say the exact same words that you would use. Now it is people like you who say that the ancient text are meant word for word, and that is part of the whole delusion of your reality that I was talking about earlier.

Why don't you and onebigmonkey call a truce and honor the thread by returning to the topic, or carry on privately.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: greyer
As someone who knows a thing or two about statistical analysis, I can tell you that this statement makes no sense whatsoever.

Now this is what the educated people say on television - they straight up lie, but it is more than a lie. It is an egotistical approach as a result of being lied to.

Nope - it's what someone who taught statistics at undergraduate level says. It's what someone who understands what a correlation coefficient is, how it is calculated and how i can be used appropriately and inappropriately. The example you gave was inappropriate.

snip

That is a general discussion of the nature of probability. It is not how a correlation coefficient is calculated or interpreted.

I favor your way of thinking bu why don't you and greyer call a truce and honor the thread by returning to the topic, or carry on privately.

originally posted by: Uggielicious

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: greyer
As someone who knows a thing or two about statistical analysis, I can tell you that this statement makes no sense whatsoever.

Now this is what the educated people say on television - they straight up lie, but it is more than a lie. It is an egotistical approach as a result of being lied to.

Nope - it's what someone who taught statistics at undergraduate level says. It's what someone who understands what a correlation coefficient is, how it is calculated and how i can be used appropriately and inappropriately. The example you gave was inappropriate.

snip

That is a general discussion of the nature of probability. It is not how a correlation coefficient is calculated or interpreted.

I favor your way of thinking bu why don't you and greyer call a truce and honor the thread by returning to the topic, or carry on privately.

originally posted by: Uggielicious

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: greyer
As someone who knows a thing or two about statistical analysis, I can tell you that this statement makes no sense whatsoever.

Now this is what the educated people say on television - they straight up lie, but it is more than a lie. It is an egotistical approach as a result of being lied to.

Nope - it's what someone who taught statistics at undergraduate level says. It's what someone who understands what a correlation coefficient is, how it is calculated and how i can be used appropriately and inappropriately. The example you gave was inappropriate.

snip

That is a general discussion of the nature of probability. It is not how a correlation coefficient is calculated or interpreted.

I favor your way of thinking bu why don't you and greyer call a truce and honor the thread by returning to the topic, or carry on privately.

Edit: something strange is happening with this forum. I cannot edit my replies when I notice I erred.

Some new documentation search results about claims made by Ken Johnston, kick-off interview on Kiviats 'Aliens on the moon' crockumentary, alleged 'Dr'.', alleged 'naval aviator', alleged 'Apollo test pilot', alleged director of Apollo photos, alleged 'sure-thing astronaut selectee', can be found here:

dorkmission.blogspot.com...

Perhaps his whistle-blowing claims aren't as credible as many would like to think.

a reply to: JimOberg

UFO proponent making a nice living out of telling lies exaggerates his credentials shocker...

Sorry if already posted; if not here it is..

youtu.be...

Why can't we get super hi res photos, then put this to rest? If NASA has them, just release them.

With photos now, we will always get images that look like building/structures.

I made a thread about a structure on Mars that looks amazing after being enhanced, but working from low res images can throw up all sorts of things.

Just wish we had hi res images, or more images close up of the locations that show something.

a reply to: Jay-morris

There are, and they have been out there for years - decades even.

There are the original Lunar Orbiter photographs, published in many books and lunar atlases and recently rescanned from the original transmission tapes, there are the Apollo Panoramic Camera images and Metric camera images, all of which are available in rescanned format and that show extremely high levels of detail. The Apollo Hasselblad images have also been around for years on the wen and decades in print


Then there are the LRO mages, Chandrayaan images, Japan's Kaguya photographs, even China's images are available on line. There are also very high resolution images from Mars probes freely available on line.

The people who do not want high resolution photographs of the moon made public are the ones making money out of UFO scams, getting you to buy their books and DVDs and following their clickbait to get the advertising revenue. They are the ones telling lies, not the real space research organisations.

The people who do not want high resolution images so