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.

 

India plans to force NASA into accepting the Extraterrestrial presence in moon.

page: 8
63
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
If they are respectable web site they wont put google ads.




posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


You are wrong. The red stripe on "Data's Head" is there. It is in the original pictures. Yes plural. I have turned up the sturation in these pictures and the red stripe is really part of the original data. I did this with the picture viewer that came free with my computer... I don't even have photoshop or anything like that. Plus the red stripe was there in multiple photos in the exact same place each time. So when Hogland says the red stripe is not an artifact of image prossessing he is being honest.

I would suggest that anyone out there find the pictures on a NASA website and turn up the saturation in the colors themself. You will see it is just as Hogland presented. Don't take Skeptical Ed's word for it. Don't take my word for it. Just try it for yourself... It only takes a few minutes.

I don't understand why so many are so anxious to call Hogland and Bara liars. Or HOAXland. I have never even once seen anything by Hoagland that comes even close to a hoax. Almost all his evidence comes straight from NASA and can be checked out by going to NASA web sites and looking at the pictures for yourself. He may come up with some wild theories but I have never seen him hoax anything. You can call him crazy all you want and you may be correct but he certainly doesn't fabricate evidence.


But back on topic, you bring up a good point. Most people in this thread keep talking about how it is a big leap to go from small amounts of water to microbial life. I say where in the article does it say that. How do we know that the Indians didn't take pictures of ruined Lunar domes, or machinery like Data's Head?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
I don't understand why so many are so anxious to call Hogland and Bara liars. Or HOAXland. I have never even once seen anything by Hoagland that comes even close to a hoax.


How about presenting a then 25-yr-old HS graduate with a straightforward NASA job (circa 1971) as a shipping clerk, as the "Director of Lunar Photo Archives" who blows the whistle on photo evidence destruction and coverup? How about presenting a flight school dropout NCO as "a veteran Marine jet fighter pilot"? How about presenting a guy with a 'seminary doctor of philosophy' certificate bought from a PO Box with a check and a coupon from the back cover of 'Science and Mechanics' as a PHD in Physics? See any hoaxes in these deceptions?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


You are wrong. The red stripe on "Data's Head" is there. It is in the original pictures. Yes plural. I have turned up the sturation in these pictures and the red stripe is really part of the original data. I did this with the picture viewer that came free with my computer... I don't even have photoshop or anything like that. Plus the red stripe was there in multiple photos in the exact same place each time. So when Hogland says the red stripe is not an artifact of image prossessing he is being honest.

I would suggest that anyone out there find the pictures on a NASA website and turn up the saturation in the colors themself. You will see it is just as Hogland presented. Don't take Skeptical Ed's word for it. Don't take my word for it. Just try it for yourself... It only takes a few minutes.

I don't understand why so many are so anxious to call Hogland and Bara liars. Or HOAXland. I have never even once seen anything by Hoagland that comes even close to a hoax. Almost all his evidence comes straight from NASA and can be checked out by going to NASA web sites and looking at the pictures for yourself. He may come up with some wild theories but I have never seen him hoax anything. You can call him crazy all you want and you may be correct but he certainly doesn't fabricate evidence.


But back on topic, you bring up a good point. Most people in this thread keep talking about how it is a big leap to go from small amounts of water to microbial life. I say where in the article does it say that. How do we know that the Indians didn't take pictures of ruined Lunar domes, or machinery like Data's Head?


You live up to your handle! I'm not wrong since I didn't write the comments, I just copied and pasted them here as an opposing POV from another person who has spent more time on this subject than I have.

It is said that Hoagland claims that the astronauts brought back objects from the moon manufactured by aliens and I wonder, if this was true, if DataHead was one of the items. After all, it was seen and photographed but was it retrieved? If it was really retrieved it must be somewhere in NASA and some people may be keeping a great secret and people have a tendency to share even the utmost secret.

As far as Hoagland, he is an impressive person but he also relies on the gullible to accept his outlandish claims such as the "castle" on the moon being an alien construct and suspended miles above the surface. How can this be considered factual when Lunar Orbiters photographed the moon's surface including the area where this "castle" is located and all one sees in high resolution photos is just a natural feature ON the lunar surface, and films taken by astronauts also flying over this area show a natural feature?

I can't name every claim he has made for alien lunar and Martian structures but he has never been able to provide any irrefutable evidence for his claims. For example, his claims centered around the unusually triangular peak of crater Ukert. The photos that he uses are taken from earth-based telescopes which do not have the resolution of those taken by Lunar Orbiters. The L.O. high-resolution photos show an average lunar crater with a smaller not-so-triangular peak, nothing of interest, but Hoagland makes a case that is unacceptable.

His claims for the lunar "city of Los Angeles" [the following quote is not attributed to Hoagland but reflects his thinking] "This area, roughly the size of the Los Angeles basin, displays a highly anomalous rectilinear pattern across the Lunar landscape. The arrangement is reminiscent of a ruined city," there is nothing there but natural features!

And his enchantment with the Martian "head" and the surrounding Cydonian "pyramids," "cities," etc., again based on low-resolution photos. He was laughed at when higher-resolution photos showed that what claimed was not what was really there: natural features.

Bara is another story and it's not a pleasant one. Google him and see what others say about him, but check out: www.math.washington.edu...

My dealings with Bara just showed me tha he is a major, not-too-bright anal cavity who has no knowledge of common sense, logic and reason.



[edit on 29-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 



Again you are wrong. Hogland has never said that the atronauts of Apollo 17 brought back "Data's Head". He has said they might have done this but that they might not have done this and that it is entirely possible that the Apollo 17 astronuats never even noticed that it was there.

As for the other stuff... Well I'm sure we could have a nice debate on those things but I think it is best left to another thread. I'm sure that there are plenty of threads here at ATS about those things and that isn't what this thread is about.

To Jim O
You bring this stuff up a lot. Bara has posted several of the credintials of the people in question on Dark Mission.net and you still have a problem with them. In my opinion Bara has done more than enough to show that these people are who they say they are and if those people are lying or misrepresenting themselves then I think your issue should be with those people and not Bara or Hoagland. They presented lots of documentation to prove why they belive these people did what they say they did, way more than I would have expected them to. Again though this thread isn't about them.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I know a guy who was once thrown in jail for two years for having sexual relations with a girl whom he believed to be 18 years of age.
She was seventeen.

He was 21.

Bummer for him, he spent 2 years in the pen.

What is the point? Is a guy to be punished for acting out of line when he doesn't realize that he is out of line?

This girl even had a fake ID to buy beer with. Not that the guy I know asked to see the ID, but I know the girl also. And she regularly bought beer.

Once again, the point with the ID is that when someone tells you they are a certain somebody and they have "documentation" to prove it, you shouldn't be punished for THEIR wrong-doings.

Just sayin.

Ruined the guy's life.
And in my eyes, he did nothing wrong.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by JayinAR]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 



Again you are wrong.


I said: "It is said that Hoagland claims..."
You have to pay more attention to what you read. I'm not wrong, whoever said what I mentioned may be wrong.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Even if you are just repeating incorrect information that you heard second hand, you are still wrong.

I'm not saying you lied or that you read those things yourself, just that the statement is in itself wrong. Since you are the one repeating them then you are therfore wrong as well.

Telling me to pay attention doesn't counter the fact that you statement is incorrect.




posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
Even if you are just repeating incorrect information that you heard second hand, you are still wrong.

I'm not saying you lied or that you read those things yourself, just that the statement is in itself wrong. Since you are the one repeating them then you are therfore wrong as well.

Telling me to pay attention doesn't counter the fact that you statement is incorrect.



Be that as it may and I doubt if it was!



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
My dealings with Bara just showed me tha he is a major, not-too-bright anal cavity who has no knowledge of common sense, logic and reason.


Ed, for perspective, just think of him (as I do) as Hoagland's attack gerbil.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
To Jim O
You bring this stuff up a lot. Bara has posted several of the credintials of the people in question on Dark Mission.net and you still have a problem with them. In my opinion Bara has done more than enough to show that these people are who they say they are and if those people are lying or misrepresenting themselves then I think your issue should be with those people and not Bara or Hoagland. They presented lots of documentation to prove why they belive these people did what they say they did, way more than I would have expected them to. Again though this thread isn't about them.


Uh, read the 'revised' Dork Mission -- the 'marine jet fighter pilot' claim is quietly edited out, it now just says 'he trained in planes' without any claim he finished training -- along with any reference to a 'PhD'. See a pattern emerging here? You fall for Hoagland bogusities, while on occasion Hoagland then yanks the rug out from under your credulity. Get used to that pattern if you are so helpless in evaluating conflicting claims.

Or do you still believe the purported "PhD" 'deploma' -- as they spell it -- from a non-existent 'seminary' is a genuine document -- so, where's the seminary? Why is it invisible? What's your rationalization for the inability of anybody on Earth to find it or anyone else claiming to be a graduate of it?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
i remember reading something that britian tried to force the US into disclosing the presence of UFO's but the US govt. threatened to cut all trade if britain if they went ahead and did it without consent of them.
Does india rely on the US much economically? If not then the US may not have much to black mail india with.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
What the hell? The moon is a dead rock, how would anything form there, and why would anyone want to live there? Absurd.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
I say go ahead, someone needs to force them to do something as these guys think they have right to keep our information suppressed.

All I can say is thank god for the internet, still even this seems to be being suppressed.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
What I don't understand is that if India want to force NASA into admitting what they know about ET existence on the moon, that means India must know or have found something as well. So why don't they show the world what they found? Why wait for NASA to admit it first?

Anyway, if believing that NASA has covered up ET presence on the moon, the fact that America, Russia and China all had equipment on the Indian moon mission hardly bolds well for disclosure does it?

What I don't understand the most though, is why it was ever hidden from the public in the first place. Would the world really fall apart if it was announced that alien relics were found on the moon?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
What I don't understand the most though, is why it was ever hidden from the public in the first place. Would the world really fall apart if it was announced that alien relics were found on the moon?


jims world would yes.



new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join