200,000 Year Old Statue Found On Moon, page 9
Pages: <<  6    7    8    9    10    11    12  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 67 times


reply posted on 6-5-2009 @ 10:05 AM by worldwatcher
reply to post by Ansiroth



A thread is only made popular by those reading, starring and flagging and responding. If members want this tabloid article out of sight, stop posting to the thread, go flag and star and post to a worthwhile thread to replace it.

It's you the user the who determines what is worthy or not, don't like it... Don't respond. Let the thread die it's natural death. Allow those who choose not to read carefully to make errors in judgment and laugh silently knowing you have the knowledge they don't or vice versa if you are believer.



[edit on 5-6-2009 by worldwatcher]


reply posted on 6-5-2009 @ 11:01 AM by m4ng4n
Originally posted by m4ng4n
I´m so feed up with the debunkers spoiling every good tread...

IF YOU´RE NOT INTERESTED IN THE SUBJECT WHY BOTHER POSTING?!!

With that said I for one is interested in the subject of ancient and lost civilizations even if I think this is a too great evidence to be truth.

But on the other hand I´m also a believer that there actually are remains of an offspring to our older civilization on the moon so why shouldn´t there be artifacts from the very same inhabitants?

Like this one for example;
www.blinkx.com...


Now I haven´t been on the moon and neither have any of you so to say wether it´s true or not isn´t the question here. The main thing is that it´s a true possibility if we had a civilization far more advanced than ours (We should be cavemen in comparison).

"which means it was made 170,000 years before the human species appeared on Earth."


Saids who? Did we appear on earth 30,000 years ago?
If this is a real artifact I for one have no problem with the fact that it was manmade but it feels a little bit contradictory to debunk and raise the question of it´s origin in the same sentence...


[edit on 5-5-2009 by m4ng4n]


I wrote the starting sentence NOT because it isn´t a good thing that hoaxes are proven but generally speaking people on this site are more or less called idiots if they spit something out that wasn´t well checked out.

Wouldn´t it due with a simple answer that points to facts? Why all the wickedness?

Jeeeezzz! Some of the guys here just seemes to think it´s hillarious to pick down on people with no regrets what so ever and just read the starting lines in a post and then have their mind clear while others just read one post and then judge because they never bother to read true a full thread.
So if you don´t read the responses given or answer the OP straight up then what does that make you?

I read more than I write and some people here only debunk everything whitout putting something forward to the discussion and that is what I meant by saying what I did, but then on the other hand I could try to explain myself on every frakkin page and still there´s someone spilling his guts all over the place because he doesn´t bother to read a whole tread.

Take a look at THE WHOLE TREAD before you post...

Sometimes it looks like a kindergarten here!

In order to rule the masses, one most divide them first...seems like that is happening perfectly on this site nowadays!


reply posted on 6-5-2009 @ 11:31 AM by Chadwickus
Originally posted by MOTT the HOOPLE
200,000-year-old baby found in moon rocks

derekclontz.wordpress.com...


There maybe something to this story after all


Oh come on, are you serious?

Why is it this Dr Richard Call's name only comes up in searches relating to the story you linked?

Why does it say:
The geologist himself stood by his charge that the agency is engaging in a cover-up and produced a top-secret photograph of a technician holding the fossilized fetus to prove it.
*SNIP*
The insiders also told him that the fossil was analyzed and shown to no less a figure than then-President Richard Nixon before it was placed in an incinerator - and destroyed.


Yet this snippet says:
The story finally emerged when South African geologist Dr. Richard Call showed newsmen the baby's preserved remains, telling the reporters the shriveled fetus had been smuggled to him by a concerned NASA lab technician.

Link

then there is the rubbish about the fossil was found inside a moon rock, since it was inside the rock that would make the rock 200,000 years old.

Firstly, moon rocks are billions on years old

Secondly, fossils aren't found inside basaltic rocks which is what Apollo 11 brought back with them.

More holes than swiss cheese.




[edit on 6/5/09 by Chadwickus]


reply posted on 6-5-2009 @ 11:49 AM by m4ng4n
reply to post by InfaRedMan



Did you even read what I wrote?

How about a crash course in reading comprehension?
Pages: <<  6    7    8    9    10    11    12  >>    ^^TOP^^



Armed drones now flying over the US
  Posted 12 days ago with 118 member flags
FBI Agent Fleeing Massive Manhunt Warns "They\'re all insane."
  Posted 10 days ago with 11 member flags
The USA has plenty of oil....we\'ve been saving it.
  Posted 7 days ago with 11 member flags
Alien Hologram Ring, 100% bonafide alien tech
  Posted 3 days ago with 4 member flags
Hey Guys Did You Know There\'s No Such Thing As Aids ?
  Posted 7 days ago with 3 member flags
App used to make ghostly apparitions in photo [HOAX]
  Posted 15 days ago with 2 member flags
Reptililan Shapeshifters: Are these videos genuine?
  Posted 7 days ago with 2 member flags
Ace Baker proves No Planes at WTC.
  Posted 5 days ago with 0 member flags