It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheMasterOne
So here we are july 20th , tonight's the night ^^^ let's hope they have good footage this time


My VCR's warming up as we speak, it's set on SP, I'm using a high grade videotape which my VCR will test and set the electronics to record the best signal from my broadband cable...

However, I know I'll wind up with 2 hours of dreck including some of the commercials.

As soon as 11pm arrives and the show ends this thread will be abuzz, Oberg's thread might set a record, and there will be other competing threads. I hope the mods will be on standby and redirect any new threads to this one.




posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
here it is 7:00 pm eastern... about 2 hours before the Aliens on moon show...
and they are showing that old standby with Sigourney Weaver flick on the Penal Colony...? Aliens?....


they are priming the pump - as it were... getting the sy-fy regulars ready for their version of Truth at the prime-time slot

I will watch... but not intently... as I will be keyboarding to my ATS posting account & just listening in my side-scan hearing ability


good luck to ya'll

 


 



Naw... I am going to listen to the Hagmann & Hagmann radio show instead

www.blogtalkradio.com...


edit on th31140589930420352014 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: St Udio


they are priming the pump - as it were... getting the sy-fy regulars ready for their version of Truth at the prime-time slot



Good point, has anybody recorded the run-up ads, or at least transcribed what they are promising to deliver.

In the last several days it's developed that both astronauts on the program have complained it looks like their words are being misused, and Marc D'Antonio has posted on Facebook that he never was give the chance to really examine any of the photos, they showed them to him ten minutes before asking him to endorse them from a brief look-over.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
originally posted by JadeStar


Why do you think aliens would want or need to hide?


Not much of substance in your reply but I'll try to do my best with the slim offerings. I do not think aliens want to or need to hide because as far as I'm concerned they do not exist. I say that with full confidence because no one has provided any evidence for their reality. That sentence opens up a pandora's box which I will not look inside for this reply.


Keep in mind that the moon has no real atmosphere, aliens could have come here any time in the last several billion years and left a mark.


No sense in replying.


Humans have only been around for like 100,000 years.


Ditto


In other words, artifacts could have been left behind long before we even existed and the moon, because it has no weather, could perfectly preserve them.


Ditto


It makes sense to look doesn't it? If nothing else than to say, 'we looked and there are no alien artifacts larger than XYZ size on the moon'


Looking intimates that there's something to look for and since no one would know what to look for and where, then it's just a fantasy.



Uggielicious: "I don't think that Dr. Paul Davies will come up with anything that will be successful in human pattern recognition because alien means just that, alien!"



In science a null result is just as good as finding something new.


I don't think that scientists would be happy with failure and would not consider it a success.


And human pattern recognition could find something alien even if it looked like nothing on earth PRECISELY because it is alien.


It's database would have to encompass every natural feature and the system could be tricked by pareidolia, our brains are!


Look, no one knows what alien artifacts would look like but most would suspect that they would not look exactly like a hill, a crater shadow, a valley or other natural geology.


Suspicion must have a basis. None exist, no positive results.


The only people who don't want to search for real answers are those who prefer fables of moon bases with aliens flitting about the moon.


Even though I'm not a believer that aliens exist I always add the UFOs filmed above the lunar surface info because one never knows. But until we know I'm not committing myself to say with certitude that they do and are on the moon. I leave that to the believers.


I'm all for the truth. Either such stories are real and there would be physical evidence which can be examined in lunar imagery or they are fables and should be put in the trash bin with "Canals on Mars" and "Venusian Women" and the like.


The truth is derived from evidence. Presently and until we know for sure, they'll be fables. However, I'm not entirely ruling out Venusian women!

edit on 20-7-2014 by Uggielicious because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-7-2014 by Uggielicious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Uggielicious

I have no desire to modify anything. The "moon pigeon" explanation is as silly as it gets and is an insult to intelligence. By using it as a source you're implying that all films, now videos, show "moon pigeons" just like NASA space footage shows UFOs but only the debris, ice particles explanation have validity.


What is it you suspect will infect your mind if you read a NASA report on spotting unknown stuff outside Apollo windows, and what it might mean? You can't seriously be arguing that you already know all you need to know about spaceflight?

What are you afraid might happen?

Earlier you already characterized yourself as too eager to state as 'facts' things you merely heard somewhere on the Internet, like -- as I recall -- the silly claim the shuttle UFO's were all recorded in ultraviolet so they were invisible to the astronauts' eyes -- or do I misremember?



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Uggielicious

I have no desire to modify anything. The "moon pigeon" explanation is as silly as it gets and is an insult to intelligence. By using it as a source you're implying that all films, now videos, show "moon pigeons" just like NASA space footage shows UFOs but only the debris, ice particles explanation have validity.


What is it you suspect will infect your mind if you read a NASA report on spotting unknown stuff outside Apollo windows, and what it might mean? You can't seriously be arguing that you already know all you need to know about spaceflight?

What are you afraid might happen?

Earlier you already characterized yourself as too eager to state as 'facts' things you merely heard somewhere on the Internet, like -- as I recall -- the silly claim the shuttle UFO's were all recorded in ultraviolet so they were invisible to the astronauts' eyes -- or do I misremember?


You state your opinion based on what you see and come to conclusions based on what you know. There are always factors that have escaped you based on insufficient data, and so you learn.

I'm sure that not all NASA reports are based on hard data but entertain speculation. Of course some of the flights to the moon resulted in some spacecraft debris as Aldrin explained regarding the "UFO" he saw that had a prosaic explanation. And it is interesting to read how it was explained versus the UFOlogists who claim he saw a real UFO.

NASA reports are not of my interest because they are technical and the technicality doesn't always result in a clear understanding especially when they try to explain something that violates their explanation. What are seen in some films/videos are not produced by stuff coming off the various modules. They stand on their own as true unexplainable mysteries. You probably are of the mind that the white "orb" that is seen below a command module whizzing past it in the opposite direction and the resulting "antenna" reorientation is what you term a moon pigeon. I'm not gonna go against the antenna coincidence but that white "orb" is certainly NOT a moon pigeon no matter what you and NASA say to discredit what I accept as an "unknown".

In reality I do not know anything about spaceflight except the public knowledge which satisfies me. If I wanted to know more I would study the subject in detail which I have no desire to do. Knowledge of spaceflight is not necessary in my life above and beyond (pun intended) what I've learned. To you it might not sound like much but you are a specialist and I'm no fool to try and match your obviously well-developed brain.

Perhaps you also know as much about treasure hunting and metal detectors as I did when I was an active hunter. If you don't, then I have that over you as you have spaceflight over me. Certain knowledge fits the needs.


Earlier you already characterized yourself as too eager to state as 'facts' things you merely heard somewhere on the Internet, like -- as I recall -- the silly claim the shuttle UFO's were all recorded in ultraviolet so they were invisible to the astronauts' eyes -- or do I misremember?


I could never be that person.

I don't understand how you could ignore my statements about the white "orb" filmed on one of the lunar missions which is well-tracked either by module camera or by an astronaut and as it approaches a large, dark crater a light goes on in the middle of the crater and additional lights on the rim. Moon pigeons? Ridiculous. You ought to see the footage for yourself and maybe your mind won't reject what your eyes see. After all, one of the astronauts reported seeing flashes on the surface. His report might have been of a natural reflective feature or he could have seen something else.

Maybe a moon pigeon!



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
watching it now, been on for about 20 mins. i am not impressed.
same old blurry pictures and so called experts that are nothing but your average joe and suzy blow that claim to be researchers/writers spewing speculation about what is what.

and of course there have been a couple of what they say are scientists that want to contradict what joe and suzy have to say.

another thing to me , it seems to be a poor quality made production. i will not be wasting anymore time on this, very disappointing.

and the claim that they exposed the truth, well i have seen any at all.

edit on 20-7-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Here's what folks who were in charge recalled about Johnston, the "insider whistleblower".
www.jamesoberg.com...



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Well, it came and, thank goodness, it went ... down like a bad lunch! Whatever you can think negative about the show multiply it tenfold and that's how I feel. I have no respect for anyone that appeared on camera and every word uttered by those individuals can be put down to bs. Except for Aldrin, of course, who should have known better than to participate on a show with that theme. He must have known. Mitchell's comments were expected 'cause he lost it long ago.

One thing of interest and I'm sure that if I spent the time to find it, there might be an explanation for the 2 b&w photos from the Russian lunar probe that show "projections" on the horizon and rising above it. I would also like to find an official NASA explanation of the "paperclip" as Bara presented it. No other photo impressed me and it was too bad that they didn't include John Lear and his escapades as a member of ATS, his threads lasted for hundreds of pages but it was just like the show, nothing of substance.

I missed that ATS, and all of the other forums, where the ideas they presented were born was not mentioned.

edit on 21-7-2014 by Uggielicious because: To correct grammar.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Garbage.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg
I'm curious as to whether or not this was presented as fact. If so, I can only think of 3 scenarios: the evidence is real, the alien presence is real but the evidence is false, or the alien presence is nonexistant. Interesting regardless of whichever it is. Of course, it could have been the usual 'this could/might be this...' Anyone seen it yet?


edit on 21-7-2014 by LucidWarrior because: Already the 20th

edit on 21-7-2014 by LucidWarrior because: Typo



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Uggielicious
As soon as 11pm arrives and the show ends this thread will be abuzz, Oberg's thread might set a record, and there will be other competing threads. I hope the mods will be on standby and redirect any new threads to this one.


Because the first 6 pages of posts in this thread were posted before the show was broadcast, I doubt many people will want to wade through it to get to the posts reviewing the show itself.

Personally, I'd prefer to see JimOberg (or someone else) start a new thread with relevant comments/links posted in the light of having seen the documentary (which I'll be watching today).

A new thread posted in the light of actually having seen this documentary would enable the OP of a new thread (Jim Oberg??) to set out a clear and concise outline of the main claims made in the show and then to methodical include facts/links relevant to those claims.

Having watched how quite a few threads have developed on ATS over the years, I doubt that such a summary and analysis on page 6 of a thread would be seen by many people or do much good.
edit on 21-7-2014 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 03:32 AM
link   
I think I'd rather watch reruns of the golden girls than this crapulation again... I think I enjoyed about 20 minutes of the show overal, and that was 20 minutes of commercials. Btw anyone know what the song is in the Soma bra commercial?



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 04:57 AM
link   
such a disappointment .. AGAIN
the same "experts" who give their "expert inside information" based on the pictures we can all find on the internet .. I'm so sick & tired of these blurry crap images and "what if" .. "could it be that" .. please stop already.
We all know that the nazi's went to the moon (and beyond) in the 1940's, they didnt use f*cking rockets but flying saucers they built themselves. We know interstellar voyages have been going on for decades and that Mars has an atmosphere (and thus blue sky), seasons like on Earth, vegetation, wildlife .. They've been making HD-quality sharp pictures of every inch of the surface of the moon since the 60's .. My god if only we were told what has really been going on above our heads then perhaps I would enjoy my life again, be able to dream and fantasize of what is possible.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: dcipledude
We all know that the nazi's went to the moon (and beyond) in the 1940's, they didnt use f*cking rockets but flying saucers they built themselves.


Iron Sky is NOT a documentary!



We know interstellar voyages have been going on for decades and that Mars has an atmosphere (and thus blue sky), seasons like on Earth, vegetation, wildlife .. They've been making HD-quality sharp pictures of every inch of the surface of the moon since the 60's ..


That all sounds even sillier than the tv show!



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Just for the record...anyone, anyone at all can be easily 'got at', especially ordinary people without hoards of well armed bodyguards surrounding them 24/7.

You post that Buzz Aldrin debunked himself?

How about 'change your story Buzz or your entire family will be taken on a long walk into a hot desert' to turn a whistleblower into a self debunker?

It would work quite well i imagine.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: IsaacKoi

You're not suggesting Mr. Oberg posted a thread just so he could invite other members to join him in 'pre-debunking' a show which hadn't yet even aired and thus sowing the mental debunking seeds far and wide in advance?

Surely not!


Mr. Oberg and those who seem to arbitrarily agree with his general point of view claim the whole moon anomalies and ancient ruins topic has no substance at all...why then does it seem to be SO important to ridicule such claims and articles / TV shows, if this assertion is so transparently wrong?

'Trying too hard' springs to mind.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
why then does it seem to be SO important to ridicule such claims and articles / TV shows, if this assertion is so transparently wrong?




To protect the stupid and the gullible, and because defending truth against lies is a matter of principle.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
All the Apollo mission photos that they largely focused on, using the Sturm collection, turned out to be a frustrating exercise in trying to prompt us to see "something". There were, though, two intriguing and NOT FUZZY shots: the pipe photo Ecker had a copy of and shared for this show and the Apollo 8 film of a puff of smoke coming from something seemingly jutting up from the ground. Ecker's photo was obviously from a different set of archived photos than what was mostly used on this show.

Loved how Aldrin tried to re direct attention and focus on Phobos and Mars! Ken Johnston is not credible. He's stealing old Maurice Chatelain's story of big ships on a crater. Did anyone hear Chatelain's name mentioned as a source? No, they didn't.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Here's the show for those who didn't see it ... Get it while it's hot.




top topics



 
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join