Moon Squatters (Short Moon Anomaly Video)

a reply to: LABTECH767

Those videos are hilarious. You think we really nuked aliens on the Moon?

a reply to: oldcarpy

I would personally argue that there was no atomic bomb used since a kinetic object crashing into the lunar surface at a high enough velocity would have plenty of kinetic energy - BUT Neither I nor YOU know what happened there.
I do believe those NASA employee's did not agree with something and left that image out deliberately, it is not the kind of thing you would miss since an image of an artificial structure on the moon would definitely be classified and I believe that image was genuine, it also happen's to be were NASA DID bomb the moon in a supposedly scientific test but no one but some conspiracy theorists have claimed that it was actually a Nuke they used.

That Said I DO believe that they did indeed use a low altitude air burst nuke to try to deface the monument on mars but that is another story.

So despite the tone of your reply and question NO I do not believe they nuked the moon BUT I DO BELIEVE they tried to destroy or did destroy a structure upon the moon.

What was that structure?.
Ancient, quite possibly and I actually think it may even be likely that it was and given it's size I believe it was beyond the scope of the US air force or any secret space wing of the US military to construct such a feature recently unless they have or had far more resources than even the vast sum's of missing and unaccounted for black budget and other fund's that are a black hole in the US finances would suggest.

That does not preclude two other possibility's, an ancient structure RE-PURPOSED and NASA being USED to place a cover story with there test impact of the lunar surface while a more destructive method may have then been used to attempt to cover any trace of more recent activity there in case the Chinese or a Chinese/Russian mission was to visit the site in the near future and find the Yank's had been stealing secret's that if they do exist rightly belong to ALL humanity that in any single nation's could give them an overwhelming tactical advantage, a fact that could actually spark a war on earth.

Or as far fetched as this theory may seem an even more unlikely theory - which makes sense if you believe the human race spewing radio waves into space for over a century may have not gone un noticed - attenuation of radio waves over distance not withstanding and some other intelligence being somewhere within that hundred or so light years of our world with both the technical ability to identify artificial radio signal's over the background cosmic radio waves of the universe AND the mean's to get here much as that may give some even more of a headache,.
A non terrestrial presence from elsewhere.
Which open's up some other thought's.
If this was an ancient structure not recently build before it was destroyed, if it was occupied by a non terrestrial presence from outside of our solar system (they could always be from here - our solar system - but not us - our civilization after all) then if there are ruin's that may indicate that something befell a former advanced civilization and foul play may be a suspect in this case.
Foul play wiping out a technical civilization as opposed to something like a natural event - hmm a neutron blast would have left far more devastation and evidence so not that meaning foul play remain's on the table - then foul play would suggest one of several possible culprit's as a potential very valid present danger to the current civilization on earth - which is not as advanced or indeed even remotely near as advanced as a race that may once have occupied at least three planetary body's in our solar system and perhaps more so was hundreds or years - at least - ahead of us technologically - and that is a PREDATOR CIVILIZATION.

Now if you have not heard of the term Predator civilization it come's from one argument based on the fermi paradox that perhaps some civilization which are advanced enough see other civilization which reach a certain level of advancement as a threat to themselves and so then wipe those civilization's out to prevent them from becoming competing civilization's with themselves or simply because they can.

So you say there is no evidence of such an attack ever having been made upon our solar system.
How about out of the mouth of an EX - or is he EX could this be a form of soft disclosure - NASA scientist?.


So let it sink in a bit he analyzed the Isotopic Element's and traces detected on mars by NASA probes and found traces that at first he tried to explain way, the problem is that they would NOT explain away as they are only created by atomic FISSION as opposed to fusion.
He estimated that there were at least two blasts in the martian atmosphere one of which if we were to build the bomb that made it would have required a bomb approximately as large as the empire states building in New York and the other about a little under half as large.
These thing's he believed killed the planet and a civilization upon it's surface.

Hey have you ever really sat there and looked at this - then compared it to carpet bombed city's were extensive carpet bombing has occurred or to images of nuclear devastation and this is only one site on mars that we are told is just down to dust devil's ha.
www.marsruins.com...

So if you don't mind my saying so why don't you AND THINK, you know look both way's before you cross the road and that would require you to open your eye's for once.

a reply to: LABTECH767


Rational Wiki: John Brandenburg

So let it sink in a bit he analyzed the Isotopic Element's and traces detected on mars by NASA probes and found traces that at first he tried to explain way, the problem is that they would NOT explain away as they are only created by atomic FISSION as opposed to fusion.

No:

Later, he proposed that the elevated ratio of 129Xenon to 132Xenon in the atmosphere of Mars could only be explained as the after signature of a nuclear weapon. He suggests that massive explosions occurred in in Mare Acidalium at approximately 50°N 30°W, near Cydonia Mensa and in Utopia Planum at approximately 50°N 120°W near Galaxias Chaos, claiming they are both locations of possible archaeological artifacts.[3][4] This idea has been challenged by astronomers and other scientists who have shown that there is another more likely and more mundane explanation for the observed xenon isotope ratios.[5][6][7] In December 2014 he also wrote: Vitrified soil, etched with acid, has been found at the sites of both hypothetical explosions, but nowhere else on Mars. This mineral resembles "trinitite", the melt glass found at the site of nuclear explosions. So I consider my hypothesis is being supported by new data. Brandenburg has cited a paper by Horgan & Bell from Geology 2011 but the article offers no real support for his contention. Horgan & Bell report widespread volcanic glass and do not even mention trinitite. The entire Northern hemisphere of Mars shows evidence of past volcanism—there is nothing special about the two areas Brandenburg focuses on. His submissions have not been accepted by peer-reviewed journals. J. Cosmology doesn't count.

So if you don't mind my saying so why don't you AND THINK, you know look both way's before you cross the road and that would require you to open your eye's for once

My eyes are open, thank you, and I don't accept everything I see on Youtube videos.

a reply to: oldcarpy

SO you quote from the extremely biased and so called Rational wiki a page which is essentially an attempt at character assassination on the guy.
I am surprised he has not sued the site but you know it is only fair to point out once again SO CALLED RATIONAL WIKI, what makes you think that Sunday-Sport (the worst ever British tabloid - nice pictures though if you were a lonely guy) quality web page is any more credible than a copy of The-Sun newspaper (one of the worst English tabloids with a rotten reputation especially up my neck of the wood's).

a reply to: LABTECH767

This off-beat idea attracted the attention of woo-peddlars and gave a mighty boost to sales of his books—both the non-fiction books and the science fiction books that he wrote using the nom de plume Victor Norgarde.

All you need to know.

You can, of course, provide proof that anything in the Wiki article is incorrect, for example the peer reviewed scientific papers that dispute Brandenburg's sensational, book-sale boosting claims? Here's a quote from the Abstract that Brandenburg relies on:

Our results provide potential confirmation of models suggesting that explosive volcanism has been widespread on Mars,

The excellent 'Exposing Pseudoastronomy site' linked in the RationalWiki has a good series of links too.
No mention of atomic warfare there.

Maybe Brandenburg hasn't sued because he knows he wouldn't win? Maybe, just maybe, you are the one who hasn't got his eyes open and needs to read all sources of information before making any judgements on the veracity of a point of view? I always find it interesting that mainstream scientists are dismissed as part of the all powerful "Them" until they start spouting things conspiracy theorists agree with, then all of a sudden someone with a PhD and a University career is a valid source.

Can I prove Mars wasn't hit by atomic weapons? No. Can Brandenburg prove it was? No. Is it likely given the evidence? No, particularly when he is using a completely non-existent thing as his basis, namely the 'face' on Mars, which is no such thing. Has he made a lot of money and some fame by fabricating a wild explanation that he knows will sell and make money? Hell yes.

Have some more reading:

scienceblogs.com...

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Look it's very clear that the scientific community or at least some in very influential positions turned on the guy when he broke rank's with them, that does not mean he went off the rail's that is just pure character assassination and anyway many of the PHD's and emeritus out there practicing in various scientific and medical profession's HAVE had breakdown's it did not invalidate there opinion's or there expertise one iota.

Though if they did start claiming a giant pink hippy called Willoughby was after there Sandwiches when in fact they were eating a chicken leg with no bread in sight then we could start to claim that it may have affected there judgment and impaired the value of there research.

But only if we did not see the pink hippy ourselves looking for sandwiches or perhaps with a trail of breadcrumb's leading to him.

Those Isotopes are the breadcrumb's.

So who is in the wrong, the person ignoring the knock at the door and pretending that there is no one out there?.

a reply to: LABTECH767

He published his paper in the Journal of Cosmology which is generally regarded as the scientific equivalent of the Sunday Sport, but without the laughs.

Check out the peer reviews of his steaming pile of BS and come back to me and tell me why they are wrong and he is right. If you can.

He has probably not sued for the very good reason that he is full of BS.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Those Isotopes are the breadcrumb's.

Are they? Please explain why.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Fission is quite different to Fusion though they share many thing's in common, Fusion is what powers the stars and all element's including what you are made up of only exist because they were created from what was originally hydrogen in the heart of gigantic short lived stars in the early universe, to simplify it Fusion is atom's being forced together and turning into heavier and heavier element's and releasing the radiation - you can imagine it being squeezed out of the atom's if you like, heat and radiation as well as light.

Fusion is something else, sometime's when Atom's are fused in stars they become unstable atom's that can remain unstable for millions or even billions of years but these atom's that do not want to remain as they are (they are unstable) and so in the right condition's they start to decay losing excess energy and mass in the form of radiation such as Polonium, Uranium, Plutonium and other radioactive element's and Isotopes of stable element's.

In some circumstances such as chemical reactions some element's can become isotopic such as carbon isotopes in living organism's.

In a nuclear bomb a dense and as pure as they can make it mass of metallic Plutonium of a highly radioactive and very unstable (atomically speaking) ball or cylinder is placed, this is usually surrounded at least in early version's of the bomb with a Beryllium sphere, this is because of the specific property's which help to focus the reaction.

The material is surrounded by shaped explosive charges which are designed to detonate at exactly (or as close to it as they can get) the same time forcing the dense unstable material of the plutonium to be SQUEEZED together in order to force some of the atom nuclei to impact one another. (alternatively they use a Vacuum and a plug, the plug of extremely unstable isotopic plutonium or another unstable element is propelled at extreme velocity into a mass of Plutonium which surrounds' it - like a piston and cylinder - this has much the same effect but for less cost than the older Manhattan project style bomb and is the sort you will have seen mock up's of being defused on action movies when a plug is removed by someone - whom in reality would be in heavy radioactive shielded gear or be exposed to a hell of a lot of radiation by handling that material by hand).

As these atomic nuclei impact one another being unstable they become excited (have too much energy and there already unstable nature is made even more unstable) and in a release of energy they split (fission), this released high energy NEUTRON's which then fly outward like tiny sub atomic bullet's as well as heat, light and other particle radiation.

Since the plutonium (specifically a highly unstable isotope of an already unstable element so not just any Plutonium) is as pure as possible and the atom's are as tightly packed together as they can make them this mean's that those High energy neutron's (neutron radiation) then impact other plutonium nuclei resulting in them then also breaking apart (undergoing fission chain reaction) and releasing yet more radiation including yet more high energy neutron's and this is called a chain reaction which all happen's so fast that the majority of the plutonium in the bomb is involved in the reaction (the more of that plutonium that fission's the more efficient and destructive the device is).

The by product other than the explosion, light, heat and radiation as well includes shorter lived radioactive Isotopes, element's whose atomic core are unstable and have excess sub atomic particles which they lose over time through radioactive decay decaying slowing down to more stable elemental form's.

Many of these Isotopes produced by Fission are simply not in the same quantity produced by Fusion, the radioactivity of the isotopes can give a fairly accurate age for them, those isotopes he discovered we can argue very accurately are far too young to be natural occurrences and they are also indicative of Fission not Fusion, also the dispersal of Fusion and Fission by products especially from explosive vs melt down are very different, meltdown would be dispersed only through wind, water flow and geological dispersal but of course fission is scattered through explosive scatter as well.

Fusion only happen's under extreme temperature and pressure as found in the heart of a star or in experimental Fusion reactors, Fission happen's all the time in nature as element's decay but not in chain reaction's except in the extreme artificial conditions of a nuclear device be that a bomb or a reactor.

The Isotopic byproducts of Plutonium Fission (nuclear bomb's) and Uranium (reactors) have slightly different fingerprint's due to the plutonium being higher on the periodic table than Uranium if you like though they do decay back down to the same element's - eventually.

Natural Fission can occur in distinct condition's such as is believed? to have happened at least twice on earth from old discovery's.

In these cases mineral uranium dissolved by and was carried into pocket's in rock by water and deposited there until there was enough for the natural and slow fission to undergo the much slower chain reaction of uranium fission - meltdown.
www.scientificamerican.com...
This seem's to have been self regulating and the same water acted as natural cooling for these natural reactors.

Another suspected natural reactor site was also discovered under the Swiss or Austrian Alps my memory fails be a little on that.

These natural reactors are still disputed as many believe they were NOT natural but are indicative of a former advanced civilization though given that they appear natural I believe they have an extremely high possibility of being natural.


en.wikipedia.org...
www.zmescience.com...

The breadcrumb's in this case are the isotopes scattered across the surface of mars in those regions were Fission took place roughly half a billion years ago, these breadcrumb's can be seen as forensic evidence in the investigation of the murder of a world, there level of decay, quantity of the isotope etc can be used to determine natural or artificial, fission or fusion reaction and I tend to trust a nuclear physicist whom worked for NASA on his opinion there.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

It may have been said on that long video (that I didn't watch), but how does he know that those specific isotopes are there? It sounds like something too specific to be detected from a satellite.

a reply to: ArMaP

Ah whom am I kidding my understanding of particle physic's is rudimentary at best, it's been a long time since I studied inorganic chemistry and physics and then only at AS level, I have also forgotten more than I care to admit.
Someone rather more qualified than myself could easily wipe the floor with my poor explanation.

a reply to: trippy123

Did you happen to have any photos saved of the Apollos 11, I think, mission where beyond the rim of the crater there was obviously blacked out areas. I thought I had saved them a few years ago, as it seemed they'd been retouched before photoshop was available, and if you adjusted your monitor you could see shapes like structures, etc.

Anyway, it seems that they may have actually seen others (craft or structures) on the moon.

originally posted by: cfnyaami
Did you happen to have any photos saved of the Apollos 11, I think, mission where beyond the rim of the crater there was obviously blacked out areas. I thought I had saved them a few years ago, as it seemed they'd been retouched before photoshop was available, and if you adjusted your monitor you could see shapes like structures, etc.

If you saw those photos on a computer monitor then Photoshop already existed and you were not looking at the originals.

All the cases I have seen of photos with blacked-out areas I have also seen other copies without those areas blacked-out and they have nothing special.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: 1point92AU

It's not out of focus, zooming-in beyond 100% does that to images.

Some people are pre-disposed to see what's not there but is in their minds. Blowing up or magnifying images beyond usefulness is their gimmick to present questionable claims. Either they magnify beyond use and/or they colorize to give supporters something to satisfy their needs for claiming that there are alien structures on good, ol' Luna as if the aliens were foolish enough to construct recognizable structures and do it on the surface! This has been going on for decades. And it's always a failure. I've never seen a single NASA photo showing other than natural features.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Thank you for your reply - missed it earlier. Very interesting, thanks.