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.

 

Hoagland's Android Head on Moon

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by FiFtEeN
www.coasttocoastam.com...






Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0 2006:10:16 20:17:16


Seeing this in the header of the picture, leads me to believe that it has been tampered with.

edit for clarity.

[edit on 12/3/2006 by Mechanic 32]




posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mechanic 32
Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0 2006:10:16 20:17:16

Seeing this in the header of the picture, leads me to believe that it has been tampered with.


Well if by tampering you mean that it no longer perfectly resembles the original pictures then you are correct... Every time one alters the brigthness or zoom you are in fact 'tampering' with the image even if that is not the term commonly used when 'professional' ( accepted by the science establishment because they agree with the established norms) scientist do so. In the planatery sciences one should , no matter how official the source, consider every and all images suspect by default.

Stellar



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
In the Data Head photo...

If you look in the lower lefthand corner. The object Hoagland called the "turkey"... it's a torso. With one leg attached. Head attached. Both arms blown off. May even be the body that goes to the face Hoagland found.

There's also what appears to be a gray in the lower righthand corner of that same photo.

Keep in mind this was the last shot taken by Mitchell before leaving the surface of the moon. It was the ORIGINAL NASA photo that Hoagland got access to as well... the analog imagery from the camera used on the moon.

There's also a structure/craft/vehicle under the soil. The "red soil" of which they spoke in the audio from that scene spells it out clearly. The craft is "red" or "orange" and shows through the soil. You can see repeated geometric shapes in the soil to the right of the data head...



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Why every rock that looks like a part of a human body has to be one? nature on earth has produced thousands of human-like stones.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Why every rock that looks like a part of a human body has to be one? nature on earth has produced thousands of human-like stones.


How many pictures of "rocks" can you "crop", bring down to the Mobile Fire Department, ask for a minute of the firefighters' time... show them that pic on your laptop...

and have EVERY ONE of them say HOLY SH**... THAT GUY GOT BURNT UP!!...

I smiled at that point, b/c they asked where it was. Some thought it was in the desert in Nevada or something, b/c they know about what I do for work...

BUT... THEY SAW A BODY!!! Trained professionals who KNOW what a "scorched" body looks like... ID'd that Torso as a BODY!

Also, I am blind in one eye. Have been for years. I see things in "2D" all day... every day. That image JUMPED out at me. I couldn't understand how Hoagland could not see it!

It's there.

What makes you JUMP to "it's a rock"? Have you reviewed the image analysis that pretty much PROVES it's metallic? Gee...



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Hey... how do I insert a photo?

wow... that sounds REALLY dumb... LOL... can someone help? I wanna show you what I'm talking about.

There's two "prongs" on the side where the leg's been removed. The same "prongs" are located on the opposite side... EXACT opposite side... opposite angles and everything... AND... there's a "ball" in between the "prongs" on the side where the leg is intact.

There's Head... and a shadow underneath it.

How do I insert a photo? Let me show you.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Without independent corroboration, which Hoagland's claims invariably lack, this is most likely another case of pareidolia. Same thing with the face on Mars.

[edit on 2/10/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
Without independent corroboration, which Hoagland's claims invariably lack, this is most likely another case of pareidolia. Same thing with the face on Mars.

[edit on 2/10/2007 by Togetic]


All due respect, there's imagery now from the MRO that shows metallic reflectivity in predawn light. The object exceeding reflectivity of surrounding areas by leaps an bounds... like WAY beyond being a "rock".

So, I respectfully disagree.

Look at Iapetus. Look at OUR Moon. Look at the 1972 Apollo photo of the backside of the moon. THEN look at the 1994 Clementine photo of the backside of the moon.

THEN come back here and give me all the reasons about why ALL the craters on the backside of the moon have miraculously DISAPPEARED in a mere 22 years.

I'll wait here...



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Can you send me examples of that? I have heard those claims but haven't seen the actual analysis.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
Can you send me examples of that? I have heard those claims but haven't seen the actual analysis.


I would be interested in seeing this as well. Perhaps someone can post up images from both time frames so we can see the difference?



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southpaw11
....ALL the craters on the backside of the moon have miraculously DISAPPEARED in a mere 22 years.


Shucks, got some bad news for ya'.

On ATS, when a post is made like that....the membership expects you to be able to back that up.

Do you have any type of support for that statement?



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Richard Hoaxland has been seeing things on the Moon, on Mars and elsewhere for a long time. And I use "seeing things" in the most derisive meaning of the phrase, of course.

Hoaxland is the guy who denied that the Moon landings ever took place, but uses photos from the moon landings to support his theory-of-the-week (that the Freemasons colonized the Moon ages ago or something). Same thing with the Face on Mars, one of Hoaxland's favorite subjects... On the one hand, Richard says that we've never sent a probe to Mars, but on the other hand he relies heavily on our Martian probe photos to support his Martian civilization rants.

In one of his truly memorable fits of "scientific" lucidity, Richard Hoaxland once declared (on the Art Bell show) that Comet Hale Bopp had been launched toward Earth as a warning from space-faring Freemasons who inhabit the outer reaches of the solar system. Now, is that a sane and scientific observation?

After more than 12 years of following Hoaxland's hare-brained antics (remember his *hic* live radio report from Coral Castle?), I just find Richard Hoaxland thoroughly unbelievable. You can't trust this guy's "information" to be any more valid than any of the other fringe conspiracy theories out there.

And, you know, if you're a staunch Hoaxland believer and supporter, more power to you. I'm not, and I'm telling you — they call him Hoaxland for a reason.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/10/2007 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
LOL-"Richard Hoaxland"


Hoagland seems to attract 2 audiences-The ones who think he is the discoverer of a new universe, and those who think his cheese has completely slipped off his cracker.

I tend to fall slightly in between-I have certainly seen some images he's presented as being anomolous in nature and definite head-scratchers, and I have also seen numerous ones where it looked like he was desperately reaching and creating his own reality.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Oh, yeah... I've been calling him Hoaxland since the early 90s. And Art Bell's other regular sideshow act, remote viewer Major Ed Dames, I refer to as "Major Head Games"


— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I am also interested in how his alleged "hyperdimensional physics" works. I remember him seeing a five-pointed star in the eye of a hurricane that he uses as evidence of his physics. But no mathematical, verifiable models have been forthcoming.

I also would like to see a response to this article analyzing Hoagland's history.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by Southpaw11
....ALL the craters on the backside of the moon have miraculously DISAPPEARED in a mere 22 years.


Shucks, got some bad news for ya'.

On ATS, when a post is made like that....the membership expects you to be able to back that up.

Do you have any type of support for that statement?


MR PENNY
Little help. I'll be glad to post the pix, but I can't figger the darned thing out... us old TRS-80 and Commodore64 Veterens caught on to MS Excel... but this is just gettin' ridiculous... LOL

HOW do I post the pics.

You can also google it yourself.

Google this:

Apollo 1972 backside of moon
1994 Clementine backside of moon

Just compare the two images... Its not difficult to see... It's facing AWAY from the earth, and they don't necessarily expect you to be looking there...

SP



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Richard Hoaxland has been seeing things on the Moon, on Mars and elsewhere for a long time.


And the 'things' on the Moon and Mars were there before he started seeing them...


And I use "seeing things" in the most derisive meaning of the phrase, of course.


And i don't even begin to respect your 'opinion' a opinion that is based on such blatant lies and misinformation...


Hoaxland is the guy who denied that the Moon landings ever took place,


I don't recall him ever doing that , or believing that for the last few decades, so feel free to give us some references to where on Earth you go that idea from.


but uses photos from the moon landings to support his theory-of-the-week (that the Freemasons colonized the Moon ages ago or something).


As above your thumb must be already be quite bloody.....


Same thing with the Face on Mars, one of Hoaxland's favorite subjects...


The face is real and there are actual honest to go supposed experts that admits that that structure is just not natural. Check out what Tom van Flandern has to say on the issue.


On the one hand, Richard says that we've never sent a probe to Mars,


Where did he say this?


but on the other hand he relies heavily on our Martian probe photos to support his Martian civilization rants.


Because he obviously never made the first claim even if he has said that it's possible that some of those 'rovers' are not actually on Mars? How else can someone clean the solar panels after all?


In one of his truly memorable fits of "scientific" lucidity, Richard Hoaxland once declared (on the Art Bell show) that Comet Hale Bopp had been launched toward Earth as a warning from space-faring Freemasons who inhabit the outer reaches of the solar system.


I have certainly heard stranger things being said , like Bush claiming that the the Iraqi's had WOMD and were going to attack the US, so on the whole this is not much weirder a claim that you regularly hear and believe because some supposed 'authority' figure claims it.

That being said feel free to give us a reference to him actually making that claim as you seem to have a hard time sticking to the truth.


Now, is that a sane and scientific observation?


If you think this is unscientific you should inspect what was called medical science considered 'true' not a hundred years ago....


After more than 12 years of following Hoaxland's hare-brained antics (remember his *hic* live radio report from Coral Castle?), I just find Richard Hoaxland thoroughly unbelievable.


You listen to someone you do not consider credible for twelve years and still can not seem to relate what he actually believes and said?


You can't trust this guy's "information" to be any more valid than any of the other fringe conspiracy theories out there.


What we surely can not do is trust your interpretation of what Richard believes. The photographic evidence of structures and active biological activity on Mars is quite overwhelming and while those who do not want to believe wont they will eventually claim that it was always pretty 'obvious' once they decide it's now fashionable to agree with reality.


And, you know, if you're a staunch Hoaxland believer and supporter, more power to you.


Being a 'staunch believer in any person is a pretty dull witted and generally stupid idea anyways so if people do not want to believe in Richard that's just fine and how it should be. If you can not separate the data from the person and interpret it on merit alone don't make it our problem.


I'm not, and I'm telling you — they call him Hoaxland for a reason.

— Doc Velocity


You can put your hatchet away now and it's best you keep it out of sight as i am pretty fed up of people thinking they can get away with spreading such obvious and vapid misinformation. Any chance one of the so called 'moderators' can inspect some of these claims for authenticity as i am pretty sure spreading known lies is not allowed?

Five days later
"I didn't think so."

At's all just character assassination but i suppose that's what you have to resort to when reality is not batting for your side.

Stellar



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southpaw11


MR PENNY
Little help. I'll be glad to post the pix, but I can't figger the darned thing out... us old TRS-80 and Commodore64 Veterens caught on to MS Excel...


Its MrPenny.

You've been on the Internet and posting to forums for at least two years and can't figure out how to provide images? Is Krusnei LLC in the intelligence field?

Roughly 16000 results from your Google terms. I'm not searching for your evidence.

Here's a Google search term for you.....'free image hosting'.....

Then, go here Image help.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
Can you send me examples of that? I have heard those claims but haven't seen the actual analysis.


I saw it first on www.enterprisemission.com but there's absolutely no way to email hoagland nor staff on that site... and good luck getting coast to coast to fwd the information to their science advisor... again... hoagland...

There are other sources though... the "google tool", my friend... that's your best bet beyond the link above.

SPout



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by Southpaw11


MR PENNY
Little help. I'll be glad to post the pix, but I can't figger the darned thing out... us old TRS-80 and Commodore64 Veterens caught on to MS Excel...


Its MrPenny.

You've been on the Internet and posting to forums for at least two years and can't figure out how to provide images? Is Krusnei LLC in the intelligence field?



LOL! NO. There's a guy named Richard that's our technical dude. HE deals with ALL that stuff for the company.

I do marketing. And don't have much need to insert pictures online...

But I definitely got a good laugh outta that one... it does look pretty "undertechnified". LOL!

I honestly have spent most of my time posting on navyseals.com for the past years. When this company came into being... it came time for me to "branch out" a bit... hence... here I am on ATS.

I appreciate the insight too... Our system is simple. The appraiser plugs his camera into the computer. Presses enter a couple times and the photos get sent over the internet to the MIS/Server at our Partner location.

Our Tactical guys? I have no idea what they are going to be capable of... I know what the guys can do that I work with now... and it mostly has to do with Sig Sauer, Benelli, and Colt... *evilgrin*

Hope you got a good chuckle, either way... LOL




top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join