wow you have made my day. but this #s scary!

Originally posted by Shadowflux
It may look sort of like a head but in all actuality it doesn't look anything like one. To begin with, if there was an android head on the moon NASA would've noticed it....

Thanks for the work you are putting into this Shadowflux, but your photos of the skull lined up next to the photo actually make it more believable for me. It does in fact look like the shape of a head, of something. Not saying its a human replica, but certainly similar. This would be one of two things, a metal object or a rock object. One of the two is shaped like a head. Is it in fact a an object resembling a human like head? I say yes, though I cannot be certain what it is. Is it in Fact a piece of sophisticated machinery and possibly the head of an android? I wouldn't say that. Its all speculation at this point. What makes it interesting is when you have photos accompanied by dialog of astronauts. Just makes it a little more believable. Makes it a lot more fun to dig.

I am interested in reading Hoagland's new book and seeing the other evidence he is reporting to be releasing soon. Its nice to see more and more photos being analyzed. I think that these anomalies will continue to be discovered and discussed here in the very near future. A lot of attention has been brought back to the moon recently. Not only with the governments of the world, but of all of us out there, searching for the real truth.

I do find it fascinating that other governments have announced their future missions to the moon. I also find it fascinating that the USA, who has "publicly" ignored the moon over the last 4 decades, followed suit that they too would go back to the moon.

Let me state that I have a hard time believing what Richard C. Hoaglund's theories about the Moon and Mars. However, the one thing that he does say that I find absolutely correct is that it is to the eternal shame of late 20th and 21st man that we haven't been back to the Moon or already put men on Mars. We've had the basic technology to go there since the late '60's. We had working space based nuclear reactors and ion propulsion systems since the 70's. The whole notion that we lack the effective technology to do this is pure bs. We've wasted billions of dollars going round and round the earth and to send up the pure pork barrel space shuttle. The only way anyone is ever going to prove RCH's theories as hare-brained as they seem is to go there.

Originally posted by crgintx

However, the one thing that he does say that I find absolutely correct is that it is to the eternal shame of late 20th and 21st man that we haven't been back to the Moon or already put men on Mars.

On what do you base this claim? Do you honestly think that if we were going to the moon and Mars on a daily basis, and have been doing so for a very long time, that that information would be made public? Let me respectfully suggest that is an incredibly naive point of view. The public doesn't even know most of the advanced aircraft produced in the past 20 years. They know about the F-117 the B-1 the F-22. They don't know about the real stuff. Take a few moments and ponder this thought: "I wonder what I don't know?"

Originally posted by johnlear
Take a few moments and ponder this thought: "I wonder what I don't know?"

You could fill the Grand Canyon a few time over with what we dont know. I agree we should not be told everything most people could either careless or not handle such info.

Originally posted by crgintx
However, the one thing that he does say that I find absolutely correct is that it is to the eternal shame of late 20th and 21st man that we haven't been back to the Moon or already put men on Mars. We've had the basic technology to go there since the late '60's. We had working space based nuclear reactors and ion propulsion systems since the 70's.

Ok. I entirely agree with you here. But what if we are already on the Moon and Mars? Sounds preposterous, doesn't it? But do we know for sure what the hell is going on? The tin can space shuttle may just be a diversion.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by crgintx

However, the one thing that he does say that I find absolutely correct is that it is to the eternal shame of late 20th and 21st man that we haven't been back to the Moon or already put men on Mars.

On what do you base this claim? Do you honestly think that if we were going to the moon and Mars on a daily basis, and have been doing so for a very long time, that that information would be made public? Let me respectfully suggest that is an incredibly naive point of view. The public doesn't even know most of the advanced aircraft produced in the past 20 years. They know about the F-117 the B-1 the F-22. They don't know about the real stuff. Take a few moments and ponder this thought: "I wonder what I don't know?"

John, you're absolutely correct I don't know what I don't know but it's public knowledge that the NERVA engine design was well along in the developmental stage when the powers that be pulled the plug. My disappointment isn't with the corrupted ones but with our complete lack of progress in the manned space program. We could have easily assembled a manned Mars Mission ship that used ion engines to propel it to Mars and back quite abit faster than our gravity assisted chemical rockets. We've been stuck in LEO for almost 30 years. It's long past time that we left orbit and went back out into interplanetery space.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm enjoying looking at how deathly, absolute pitch black the sky is on those moon pics.
I find that with alot of moon pics. Wheres the pretty stars, woudln't there be alot more without the pollution etc.
I'm sure i'm just not scholared and theres some reason like the atmosphere bla bla.

You don't see stars in those pictures for the same reason you don't see (or hardly see) stars in a town or village (were you don't have polution) under the street light or why you can't see things in your chamber when you turn off the light. In your case, it has to do with your eye adaptation to the light enviroment (the opening of your iris along with your retina sensibility). For a camera, it also has to do with the diaphragm opening (which control the amount of light that reaches the film or CCD) and with the sensitivity of the film or camera sensor. If you want to see stars in the moon pictures you need a long exposure time, but that will overexpose the lit areas.

So if i went to the country area where theres no pollution and theres a really nice view of the milky way up there and i took a picture it woudln't turn out?

Not if you sit under a street light. At least you will not have a well exposed street or light pole and the milky way in the same frame. You'll either get the milky way along with the overxposed street or the only the street. All those moon photos are not overexposed, so there are no stars.

Thanks for explaning that. : )
Although it still doesn't seem 100% right to me that they're just totally blank it's a good enough explanation and i'll stop thinking about it I guess ; )

.

On what do you base this claim? Do you honestly think that if we were going to the moon and Mars on a daily basis, and have been doing so for a very long time, that that information would be made public? Let me respectfully suggest that is an incredibly naive point of view. The public doesn't even know most of the advanced aircraft produced in the past 20 years. They know about the F-117 the B-1 the F-22. They don't know about the real stuff. Take a few moments and ponder this thought: "I wonder what I don't know?"

Excellent point John i have thought about this myself for some years now. I wouldnt be at all suprised if the shuttle missions where a curtain operaration shadowing what was really going on up there. For some years i have believed we have actually sent a manned mission to Mars. Maybe not physically stepped on the planet but definitely orbited and then returned. As for the moon i believe we never left the place and that there is a whole lot of activity going on up there. All this whilst 99% of the sheeple watch the shuttle and construction of the ISS in awe????

The reason you don't see stars in NASA's pictures taken on the moon is that the daytime color of the sky is not black. The refraction through the moon's atmosphere turns the color of the sky black to...maybe blue...maybe red.....maybe yellow...but its certainly not black IMHO. I like to think of the moons skys as a pale yellow, which I think it is. Of course I don't have any proof yet! But before you start blasting me just take a minute and imagine what you don't know. Then, of course, blast away.

Originally posted by johnlear
The reason you don't see stars in NASA's pictures taken on the moon is that the daytime color of the sky is not black. The refraction through the moon's atmosphere turns the color of the sky black to...maybe blue...maybe red.....maybe yellow...but its certainly not black IMHO. I like to think of the moons skys as a pale yellow, which I think it is. Of course I don't have any proof yet! But before you start blasting me just take a minute and imagine what you don't know. Then, of course, blast away.

It's funny that we don't see any kind of atmosphere at the moon's limb down here on Earth. And I don't mean NASA isn't seeing an atmosphere but the average Joe. Is it some kind of hologram? Or waht? How come we can clearly see an atmosphere around Mars (wich can be more than 2 AU away from us and still see its atmosphere) and we cannot see the atmosphere around the Moon. That makes you think, doesn't it? How come during solar eclipses we don't see the moon's atmosphere refracting sun's light at the limb?

Originally posted by Apass

How come during solar eclipses we don't see the moon's atmosphere refracting sun's light at the limb?

I don't know Apass. Maye its a trick of light and shadows.

Originally posted by johnlear

The public doesn't even know most of the advanced aircraft produced in the past 20 years. They know about the F-117 the B-1 the F-22. They don't know about the real stuff. Take a few moments and ponder this thought: "I wonder what I don't know?"

Ok. But my simple brain wants to ask, if it's true then why aren't these aircraft being used? They haven't in Iraq. Not in Afghanistan. Not anywhere we know of. What are they being used for?

So why are they being made? Is it in preparation for a coming war against the 'aliens'? If yes, then do we have a hope in hell to win a battle against a far more technologically advanced race? We'll be smothered to pulp! (That's if aliens are a reality!!)

Darn! It's getting curiouser and curiouser!

P.S. I'll give John a beer if he can answer this one!!

[edit on 18-10-2006 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by mikesingh

Ok. But my simple brain wants to ask, if it's true then why aren't these aircraft being used? They haven't in Iraq. Not in Afghanistan. Not anywhere we know of. What are they being used for?

Some of them are but you won't see them.

So why are they being made? Is it in preparation for a coming war against the 'aliens'? If yes, then do we have a hope in hell to win a battle against a far more technologically advanced race? We'll be smothered to pulp! (That's if aliens are a reality!!)

In our government/militarys' infinite arrogance at one time we believed that we could defeat the grays. They are smarter now and working on a spin rather than a war against aliens.

Darn! It's getting curiouser and curiouser!

As one NASA insider says, "The lie is different at every level."