Originally posted by franspeakfree
If other people did the research instead of trolling threads

With all due respect FSF, what research are you referring to that proves these allegations?

As much as I like John Lear, he doesn't count. Looking over old NASA photo's in an old book with a magnifying glass doesn't equate to science... or proof of mining facilities. All I see is yet another case of pareidolia combined with the 'need to believe'.

As hard as I've tried, I can only see rocks.

IRM

I saw another time these "misterious" pictures.
And YES I agree with people that says there were only some kind of lens flare, and a touch of pareidolia.
I add that, the process of obtaining those pictures at that time, means using chemical substances and processes. And there may be some neuniformities in the process of developing. I know from my personal experience in my teenager photographer stages. Somebody may scan his old films, and see all kind of neuniformities, orbs, lens flares etc where is expected to see just monotonous blacks or grays.

Hey Mike, I'm pretty new to your threads in particular, but I'm no stranger to the fantastic livingmoon.com and it's excellent researchers.

I don't really see anything that strikes me as odd in the images taken behind the LEM.

I've seen so many images like the ones below that still drive me crazy when trying to explain them. I'm heavily leaning in the existence of artificial structures on the moon. But who built them..how..and why? .. It wouldn't be surprising to me at all if the U.S for example have been militarily(or otherwise) colonizing the moon for decades under people's noses.





Let's not forget 'the fusion reactor', that one is pretty insane!! among many others. Thanks alot Mike, I'll definitely keep tabs on your threads in the future.. interesting discussions.

Peace all,

Majorion



[edit on 29/12/08 by Majorion]

Sorry for the double post Mods! No matter which IP address or ISP, I seem to have trouble loading pages or posting. Maybe a UK thing?!

Originally posted by freakyty
The moon is billions of years older than the earth. It was 'moved' here about 10,000 years ago iirc. Many ancient civilisations speak of a 'time before the moon'. The moon is mostly hollow, and there are several massive sub-terranean (underground) disc shaped, possibly metallic structures on the near side of the moon (the side facing earth) and a few more on the far side. There are probably several civilisations with outposts on the surface and inside the moon.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by freakyty]

Wow... that is.. stunning.

Have you *any* shred of proof that the moon was "moved" here? That it's mostly hollow? That one or more civilisations have outposts on the surface?

Besides the very flakey (and I mean VERY flakey) low res, "you-see-what-you-want-to-see" Moon landscape images, there is nothing to indicate any of what you have stated.

All the imagery from Nasa is very low grade where people are "seeing" things -- the vast majority of the images where people are seeing complex shapes and rectangles are to due with the image processing algorithms used the computers, nothing more. Even the latest Japanese images don't show any of the supposed bases, structures or skulls or robots or whatever else people claim is there.

Sure, I'd like it to be true, and I'm open minded about the *possibility* -- but until real evidence is presented, Ockham's razor...

Originally posted by mikesingh
So you wanna go DAMN??? Then just click on the link below...



Have yer eyes popped out yet? No? OK. Wait a little more until I show you stuff that'll make you go GODDAMN!!!

Cheers!

[edit on 29-12-2008 by mikesingh]

Uhmm.. nothing there makes my eyes pop out...?

The static image at 0:14 *could* be viewed as some tower structure, but as the quality is pretty bad, the contrast is low with heavy shadow, there is no landscape context to get a frame of reference for a size, who knows.

But images at 0:19, 0:22, 0:27, 0:30 (colouring it orange doesnt help!), 0:38 and 0:41 are.. well, nothing. I couldnt' see anything - no moon bases, no structures - nothing that looks like anything that couldn't be easily explained through natural landscape formations due to a low atmosphere with numerous merotite impacts over millions of years and low res photography.

The image of the tracks at 0:41 -- well, I'm no expert/historian on the Moon landings but I would guess those are the tracks left by one of the buggy things the boys used?

I stopped watching after that as it was like all the others -- just very blurry, grey/black/white imagery of a moon landscape.

That certainly isn't proof, I'm sorry to say. I'm not trying to p1ss on your parade as I would love to see these things and all of it be true, but as a realist -- no, nothing there would sell it to me.

EDIT: just finished watching -- while the blurred image is interesting, the "smoking gun" pic isnt that at all.

[edit on 29-12-2008 by noonebutme]

Originally posted by freakyty
The moon is billions of years older than the earth. It was 'moved' here about 10,000 years ago iirc. Many ancient civilisations speak of a 'time before the moon'. The moon is mostly hollow, and there are several massive sub-terranean (underground) disc shaped, possibly metallic structures on the near side of the moon (the side facing earth) and a few more on the far side. There are probably several civilisations with outposts on the surface and inside the moon.

Documentation please

Originally posted by Darthorious
The light reflecting off it at an angle makes near perfect sense and does seem to line up at an angel.

Lights off...




Lights on...



[edit on 29-12-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by InfaRedMan...or proof of mining facilities.

Insider email

Hi, Ron...Good Morning!

Thanks for the note and you certainly touch on points of similarity and interest (proving that great minds think alike!).

On the mining-thing. I can only state that in the broadest of senses mining operations have taken place on the lunar surface and are presently being conducted on Mars. Although the use of terminology, 'mining' has been downplayed (by NASA) and there exists an 'internal memo'

{snipped equipment details - you don't have a need to know }

Use of terminology, e.g., 'mining', could be considered (by some countries) to constitute a violation of the International Space Treaty. Thus, NASA is real-careful about use of terminology that could be considered a breach of 'Policy and Protocol'. I can give you this stuff as it's 'public information'. You have to look between the spaces/lines for more info and draw your own conclusions.

- one of the three people who own the mineral rights to the moon

[edit on 29-12-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by mikesingh
Now the original NASA image was initially found by Richard Hoagland and since I’m not much of a fan of his, I wanted to lay this controversy to rest one way or the other. So are these anomalous objects the result of a photographic glitch? Lens flare? Reflections? Some pixel-play? Or is it the real deal? The original image from the NASA web site is linked below.

Hasselblad has a Hexagonal shutter...

If a Glass Dome... EVEN IF the moon only had 1/6th G as NASA attempts to tell you, the glass dome would NOT have a sharp corner. It would not be able to hold up its own weight.

Hoagland also indicates that the glass is damaged... so what maintains its integrity to stand up without a framework?

I think he has an image somewhere that shows a rebar framework?