New Moon Anomalies Documentary 2018 Most Astonishing Lunar Discoveries Ever Made

a reply to: JimOberg

Why should anyone believe any fable from Hogwashland, Leonard, and Chatelain? What 'inside' sources would ANY of them have had access to?

You forgot about Swann.

The basic appeal to curiosity could be irresistible to some people. The sense of wonder and even the humility to admit that we can't be sure about anything unless they are investigated and re-investigated thoroughly. Even then we still have to be open to the possibility that we can be wrong.

If Hoagland et al were all wrong, personally, I can still appreciate the "fable" they presented for its entertainment value. What "inside" sources do you have access to that convinced you that its all a fable? Do we have to invoke "inside" sources to talk about anomalies?

a reply to: MaxTamesSiva

What makes you think that people who disagree with Hoaxland et al.haven't done any research of their own?

Some of us are more than happy to spend our time poring over lunar images from a wide variety of sources without feeling the need to cover them in fairy dust and squeeze money out of people to get hold of our findings.

There is in an built arrogance to the 'NASA cover-up' crowd who claim an unwarranted high ground and assume that no-one else has the knowledge to call them out on their emperor's new clothes routine.

Presenting a fable for entertainment is one thing. Claiming it's true and defrauding money from the gullible is another.

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
....If Hoagland et al were all wrong, personally, I can still appreciate the "fable" they presented for its entertainment value. What "inside" sources do you have access to that convinced you that its all a fable? Do we have to invoke "inside" sources to talk about anomalies?

Uh, uh. You made the claim, you show the checkable evidence.

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva

You forgot about Swann.

You seem to want us to forget about you naming Chatelaine and Leonard.

What reason should anyone give them any more credibility for such claims than your cousin Max, or your 2nd grade teacher?

originally posted by: JimOberg
Gordon Cooper said on video that he had looked at all the Apollo photos and saw no sign of ET activity on the moon.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJMrU8WCeWY&t=1943s

The exact conversation begins soon after 1:00:00 in the tape.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

What makes you think that people who disagree with Hoaxland et al.haven't done any research of their own?

What makes you think that?

Some of us are more than happy to spend our time poring over lunar images from a wide variety of sources without feeling the need to cover them in fairy dust and squeeze money out of people to get hold of our findings.

Should we always trust what we see? How about the things we can't see or don't want to see? No one's forcing anyone to buy their books and to those who bought their books and read it, it's up to them to say if they got their moneys worth.

There is in an built arrogance to the 'NASA cover-up' crowd who claim an unwarranted high ground and assume that no-one else has the knowledge to call them out on their emperor's new clothes routine.

Presenting a fable for entertainment is one thing. Claiming it's true and defrauding money from the gullible is another.

I guess I'm arrogant. Can't you say they same about yourself? What's the point of discussing this if you already made up your mind? Asking questions, presenting a hypothesis or theory is obviously different from claiming that it's true.

a reply to: JimOberg

Uh, uh. You made the claim, you show the checkable evidence.

It's a statement that I'm open to the possibility that they could be were wrong. Did I make a claim that that they were right? I'm just asking questions that are answered with questions.

You seem to want us to forget about you naming Chatelaine and Leonard.

What reason should anyone give them any more credibility for such claims than your cousin Max, or your 2nd grade teacher?

No, Hoagland, Swann, Chatelaine and Leonard were mentioned among others in the video that the OP posted. I just pointed out that you forgot to mention Swann. So, what about Chatelaine and Leonard?

I don't think it's a question of credibility, it's a fundamental question of possibility or possibities.

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva

No, Hoagland, Swann, Chatelaine and Leonard were mentioned among others in the video that the OP posted. I just pointed out that you forgot to mention Swann.

Fair enough.

I have only personally examined Swann's supposed remote viewing of the planet Jupiter and found the claim preposterous with acrobatic ad hoc re-posturing of predictions to twist them into 'hits'.

Chatelaine was an engineer who briefly worked for an Apollo program contractor in the mid-1960s, later wrote ancient astronaut books and claimed to have been in the 'inner control room' years after he had been fired.

Leonard was a federal bureaucrat [never NASA] who published a book claiming to see giant machines like vacuum cleaners scouring the lunar surface. He subsequently saw better-quality imagery and repudiated his book and asked people to stop criticizing it because he no longer believed it.

a reply to: MaxTamesSiva

The quote under direct question is "Lunar bases have been reported by astronauts "

I've never seen a single comment from any astronaut supporting this.

I've seen several FAKE stories by UFO writers fabricating such 'private admissions' without any evidence.

And even the strongly pro-UFO ex-astronaut Gordon Cooper, in the 1995 video interview I cited above, was emphatic there were no signs of alien structures in the 'every inch' of Apollo imagery he had examined. This, from guy in his later post-hero years who thought Dan Fry really had been aboard a flying saucer and could get Cooper a ride too, and who believed the Meyer photos from Switzerland were absolutely genuine.

a reply to: JimOberg

I respect your skepticism but don't you think skepticism cut both ways? Shouldn't we be more skeptical of our own views than others? Why do we have to be more critical of our own views than of others?

Obviously I tend to lean a bit more on the woo side of the fence. It's more fun here- a raucous amalgamation of incongruous groups and individuals wallowing in the bizarre side of the pop culture pigsty nestling dangerously close to a metaphysical ravine... as an old adage says, "In filth it will be found."

Having said that, I'm not fundamentally against NASA, any government institution and private corporation to keep secrets from the general public but that won't keep those who perceive a whitewash, whether imagined or not to make noise, ask questions and weave their own theories and hypotheses. Some even make a living out of it.

The question of credibility is important, but how much importance do we ascribe into it, to the detriment of the message? How accurate are the sources that question that credibility? How do we parse the message in able to better understand it? Do we simply reject the message if the source is tainted without even taking into consideration the circumstances around it?

I can only try my best some of the times as I bungle my way through sifting a sea of information hoping to find not answers, but different perspectives that may lead to different possibilities.

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: JimOberg
I respect your skepticism but don't you think skepticism cut both ways? Shouldn't we be more skeptical of our own views than others? Why do we have to be more critical of our own views than of others?

I'm always looking for criticisms and corrections to my published views. It's why I post draft reports at ATS, such as this one:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The quote STILL under direct question HERE is "Lunar bases have been reported by astronauts "

I've never seen a single comment from any astronaut supporting this.

Can ANYBODY provide support for the comment, or have we reached a consensus the claim is spurious?

a reply to: JimOberg

The quote STILL under direct question HERE is "Lunar bases have been reported by astronauts "

I've never seen a single comment from any astronaut supporting this.

Can ANYBODY provide support for the comment, or have we reached a consensus the claim is spurious?

Chances are Disclosed TruthTV will be glad to hear from you, why don't you drop them a line and ask them about the source/s of their claim.

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: JimOberg

The quote STILL under direct question HERE is "Lunar bases have been reported by astronauts "

I've never seen a single comment from any astronaut supporting this.

Can ANYBODY provide support for the comment, or have we reached a consensus the claim is spurious?

Chances are Disclosed TruthTV will be glad to hear from you, why don't you drop them a line and ask them about the source/s of their claim.

How is that not an obvious waste of time?

Welcome to the club Jim, not all our questions have answers.

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
Welcome to the club Jim, not all our questions have answers.

Au contraire, you have clearly answered my question.

There's not the slightest evidence in the whole world that the OP' s assertion about what astronauts have said, is credible.

But you're still willing to believe it.

QED.

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva


I don't think it's a question of credibility, it's a fundamental question of possibility or possibities.

Using your logic, just about anything is a "possibility".

Someone makes that statement that flying unicorns are making rainbows on Mars? Someone said it's true, so that means it's a possibility!

a reply to: JimOberg
Jim, it's Disclosed TruthTV's assertion. Leave the OP alone.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
Is that a contextual analysis of the definition of possibility or an epistemological approach to modalities? Would you mind expounding on it.

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
Is that a contextual analysis of the definition of possibility or an epistemological approach to modalities? Would you mind expounding on it.

Sure, I'll expound.

You seem to be more interested in exploring possibilities that you find to be the alternative view of things, and conversely seem to want to dismiss possibilities that are mundane. In reality, in the absence of any evidence, both kinds possibilities (the "cool alternative story" and the "boring mundane story") are at least equal.

So you may say that we should explore the idea that the astronauts saw moon bases because it is possible that they did -- but if you do that, you should also be just as interested in exploring the idea that astronauts did NOT see moon bases, because it is possible they did not.

Of course these possibilities are only equal in the absence of any evidence. In reality, we have more evidence for one than the other. Jim Oberg's assertion that they did not say they see Moon bases (countering your assertion that they did) is more of a possibility, because there is no evidence that astronauts saw Moon bases.

A mind open to possibilities is great. However, don't close your mind to counter possibilities just because they are counter to your pre-conceived notions or are more mundane than your pre-conceived notions.

Sure it would be interesting and cool if the Apollo astronauts saw moon bases. However "interesting" isn't enough to make the possibility a valid one. Sometimes the mundane possibilities are the true ones, and your mind should be wide open to those mundane possibilities as well.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
Of course these possibilities are only equal in the absence of any evidence. In reality, we have more evidence for one than the other. Jim Oberg's assertion that they did not say they see Moon bases (countering your assertion that they did) is more of a possibility, because there is no evidence that astronauts saw Moon bases.

On top of that there is no evidence of moon bases, despite any number of probes over the last 60 years from half a dozen space agencies. Given the relatively small amount of moon that any one astronaut saw up close during his time there it might be no surprise that they saw no bases. The 100% coverage by unmanned probes at very high resolution showing no bases says that there are none to see.

By all means question, but phrase your questions properly, and be prepared to accept an answer that disappoints you.