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.

 

Evidence Of UFOs On The Moon!!?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Wow. I am definitely not going to take any headlines from you that mention 'proof', or 'irrefutable proof' as even potentially being serious anymore. Your ideas are interesting, but you are clearly far, far, FAR overstating them.




posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Thanks guys, got in from a bad day at work, really needing a laugh. Then while waiting for the tea to brew I saw "Irrefutable Evidence Of UFOS On The Moon!".

I felt my mood lift for I knew that I was about to have a good laugh.

I am off to get the needle and thread to sew my sides back together again.
Keep this up and you will need Public Liability Insurance.

Tiloke has put two pix up. The "UFO" (ha ha ha) is in both and demonstrates exactly the same lighting effect as the foreground mound in both pix. Its a geographic feature. Sorted.

I really wish that I had the time some of you got to waste sitting there trawling the Internet for "Irrefutable Evidence"like this. The case for aliens on the moon gets less and less likely the more we depend on "evidence" like this. I guess "Irrefutable" and "Evidence" have different meanings to different people.

As for the alleged statement about aliens watching them. It not true. I know I was there. I got no proof but there is about as much proof that I was there as there is proof that the conversation took place.

Jeez this place is better than the Samaritans


Better get some more sewing thread, so I can sew my ass back on, since I just laughed it off



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Irrefutable proof - A UFO defied the laws of physics and a sphere flew through wood and glass and hovered silently as though gravity were a flexible rule, time hung in a balance and without a doubt there are far stranger things than we have yet imagined.

It's so tiring to keep opening our eyes when they naturally flutter and droop in our comfortable disguise.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
There should be better regulated guidelines on words like "irrefutable" - these statements, in 100% of threads I have read so far all ways lead to dissapointment



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Question for everyone who thinks the object is a "flying saucer".

Why would this obvioulsy advanced craft, which probably flies on some kind of gravity drive, be oriented at an angle to the surface while so close to the surface?

It's a hill IMO.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
mikesingh,

You have done some good work in the past and now you may have blown it all in one single thread.

Why are you suddenly being so reckless?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
C'mon Mike - get a grip on reality already. You've got to tone down the sensationalizing headlines and misleading posts. There is barely a controversy here, much less anything resembling "irrefutable proof".

There may be something happening on the lunar surface that we don't know about - there may not be. If you have a belief one or the other, that's fine - we'll accept that - just say so and keep things in context.

I personally believe that NASA is not telling us everything that has gone on with the Apollo missions. But I don't know exactly what is being kept from us - and I certainly enjoy reading about the various theories and conjecture presented in forums like ATS.

But to keep throwing things like this in front of us with overblown, over-dramatized headlines and commentary is, in the very least, hurting your credibility. It also is giving the whole ATS ‘prime directive’ a black eye. By behaving in such an aggrandizing way you impugn the legitimate debate and intelligent discussion your original topic would otherwise attract.

My advice would be to think a little more carefully before posting a new thread. Are you seriously proposing that this anomaly on the lunar surface is, “irrefutably”, a UFO and can be absolutely nothing else whatsoever? Perhaps, you are rather just hoping to generate some ‘faux’ excitement – gain a few extra response points in the process, and figured that with an over-the-top headline and claim you can draw a few more responders than you would have with a more honest and sensible one.

If it’s the first scenario then your reputation will be shot to hell in a heartbeat. Just take a look at the responses to this thread. The majority, by far, thinks you’re all wet and that we’re looking at nothing more than a hill in the background (and I completely agree with them). If your motives lie in the second scenario, then you’re in trouble, and rather than attracting thoughtful posters and encouraging meaningful discussion you will be inviting the wrath of both ATS mods and infuriated members and rightfully so. In either case the downward spiral will be not be pretty. Nor is it necessary.

I mean no disrespect – in fact, I think you’ve had some interesting observations and worthwhile points to make, in other threads, Mike. Let your conscience be your guide. Be logical, sensible – considerate of others.

The photo you are showing us is NOT irrefutable proof. It is an image that contains an anomaly in the background, probably just a hill and shading, which coincidentally, perhaps even amusingly, happens to also be in the popularized shape of a traditional UFO. You can not, and should not, “irrefutably” claim it to be anything else.

Good luck – and keep looking up!



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I suspect Mike didn't think very long prior to posting. I'm betting his emotions and excitement overtook his rationale and before he knew it he was in over his head.

At least that's what I hope happened here.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Nah, mike's other threads are mostly playing on the same theme. Fuzzy pictures that can be seen as anything, if you are looking for it.

"I'll see it when I believe it."

It just so happens that this time, there were other photographs to back up the fact that what he was looking for just wasn't there. It makes you want to relook at the other threads and see if maybe mike was making mountains out of molehills.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Errrr... so that's quite a blow against the "fake moon landing" conspiracy theory, isn't it?

If there were flying saucers on the moon such as this picture suggest, then the landings are real... or otherwise they were faked, and some people on the film crew wanted to make a joke by including a false UFO... on a fake moon landscape.



The plot thickens...



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I hate you for wasting my time looking at this. Don't say crap like this is irrefutable. Just because you strongly believe it doesn't mean its true. Even if astronauts are saying they see (...) doesn't mean its irrefutable either. This photo is easily refutable, what were you thinking? Probably something like 'I want 234828 people to read my post'.

````````````````````
removed censor circumvention

[edit on 30/1/07 by masqua]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   
True, JRA solved the case. A better resolution pic shows that it's part of another hill.

[edit on 30/1/07 by Echtelion]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I am still enjoying the possibility it was a ship left by someone else. So what it isn't at a 90 degrees? do they have 90 degree angles in an alien world? Do they even use degrees for measurement? How would they know what is our 90 degree to their 90 degrees? I know it is a hill though, so oh well.

What is Dulce? please explain. noone tells me anything



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Minael:

Click on Advanced Search at the top of the ATS page Advanced Search enter "Dulce" as a search parameter and you'll get dozens upon dozens of thread links on Dulce.

Good luck...



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Minael
I am still enjoying the possibility it was a ship left by someone else. So what it isn't at a 90 degrees? do they have 90 degree angles in an alien world? Do they even use degrees for measurement? How would they know what is our 90 degree to their 90 degrees? I know it is a hill though, so oh well.


1 word... mathematics. 1 is 1. maybe in their language its pfleh. Numbers never change. so does mathematics, the only difference is formulae



What is Dulce? please explain. noone tells me anything


beat me to it.


[edit on 30-1-2007 by The_unraveller]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
True, JRA solved the case. A better resolution pic shows that it's part of another hill.

[edit on 30/1/07 by Echtelion]



Did you just skip over my posts, he said what I said , after I said it. Same with the pictures. A little credit, as I was up for 2 hours to debunk this last night.

I'm looking at mikes other posts now, some of them might have merit, but I think he mostly just sees what he wants.


I'll see it when I believe it




[edit on 30-1-2007 by Tiloke]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
mikesingh,

Don't bother with ignorant_ape, i put him on ignore list a long time ago and he's refreshing my memory as to why i did it when i see someone quote him.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
actually, the "irrefutable evidence" refered to is contained in almost every ancient religious writing on this planet that adverbum details space flight, nuclear wars, and thought transmission as communication. too bad it's all myth. much like our own history is, or will be. for a diversion read
"A Canticle for Lebowitz". do we not take ourselves too seriously? as my friend and advisor, the Cardinal Zero T Zambonie would say, "remember, levity not gravity".



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Come on guys, mikesingh made a careless mistake, forget it. Don't make him down.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
This is the second "mistake" he's made in the past few days that I've seen. How is it that if he were *new* here he would have been banned for "inciting a riot" (LOL) but since he's been here a long time he's given pass after pass.

I'm not advocating banning you Mike, but I'm just pointing out the blaring double standards that are made.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join