It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Richard C Hoagland predicts Moon Structure/Possible ET Disclosure in Weeks.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:17 AM
So Exuberant1 has Hoagland fond your flashes there seems to be a lot of talk about disclosure i wish it would happen.


posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:28 AM
reply to post by mars1

I haven't heard the show yet so I am not sure.

But nobody who did has heard it has mentioned if he has addressed them.

The flashes are the strangest anomaly to come out of this mission thus far (unless I missed something); and even though I have narrowed down the possible prosaic explanations to two possibilities, I'd like to hear Hoagland's thoughts on them.

For those of you who have not had the chance to see them, here is a video about the flashes/pulses that we are referring to. (It is made by ATS member Ocker:

Here are some images of the flashes that Pegasus/ATS got the scoop on:

No flash:


No flash:

Flash again!:

No flash:

Flash Again!:

These images are cropped form a larger one, that is why the flashes from the top-left now appear in the center of the cropped images. Here is where they are from on the larger image (and where the flashes can be spotted in the video):

Here is the video - The anomalous flashes occur at the very start - look at the top left :

The other flashes that occurred were also posted to ATS first - here they are (they were located towards nearer the center of the shot; see the above video):

This is what the Area looks like when there are no flashes...

Let the flashing begin - start with a double-flash:

Now a Single Flash:

And another:

And yet another!:

And another!:

*And just like the last time we saw flashes in infra-red, the view was quickly switched to non-infrared; where the flashes could no longer be seen...

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Exuberant1]

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:36 AM
just finished listening to this in the office (UK).

you can listen to previous C2C shows here:

Go to coast to coasts site, older shows and match the dates with cjob. 12am onwards for coast to coast..


posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:47 AM
reply to post by Exuberant1

Woo Hoo !!! Yay !!

THAT was a stunning post.

A HUGE thankyou to you.

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:57 AM
My guess is there were 2 or more cameras. The crappy 1969 cameras are the feed the peasantry was able to watch, on delay as well, I am sure. The other cameras were the good stuff. Now those are the shots we'd love to get our hands on.

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:15 AM
reply to post by sum-one

Thanks sum-one!

Those are the images I posted shortly after I discovered the flashing. They have yet to be addressed by NASA...

...You see, these flashes present quite the predicament for NASA, regardless of whether they are artificial or natural. They are actually there occurring on the lunar surface
Imagine the implications of this. NASA might just have to ignore them altogether - it wouldn't surprise me.

*Sum-one, what do you think caused the flashing?

Note how regular and consistent those flashes/pulses are. Take that into account when you are deciding what might have cause them.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Exuberant1]

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:31 AM
reply to post by Exuberant1

Yeah, as you say natural or artificial they are there and at some point NASA will be required to address them.

I'm racking my brains to think what they could be. I suppose the regularity would rule out volcanic type things?

Could it be something to do with radiation? Natural or artificial? But if that was the case wouldn't they be insane to drop anything there?

(Oh I forgot - they might be

Sunlight catching on something that's rotating...?

Sun catching off something that's rotating inside a glass dome?

That's all I can come up with, off the top of my head, at the moment.

Will think more about it.

edit to say...but as is suspected there was no, or a feeble 'impact' then maybe the radiation posibility could still be on? But does radiation pulse? Just brain-storming myself.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by sum-one]

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:43 AM
Fits right in with all the other (UFHs) "unidentified freaking happenings". What a strange world/reality we now live in. Could have never imagined a decade ago that reality would become visibly more weired that anything Hollywood could produce.

I sense exposure of many of these UFHs is near at hand.

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:45 AM
reply to post by sum-one

But remember, the flashing was occurring before any impact had taken place, and the second instance of flashing occurred in an area far away from any point of impact.

NASA will not be able to pin the flashing on their actions. They must find another way to account for the flashes.

Also keep in mind the fact that the possibility that they are attributable to transmission or camera artifacts has already been ruled out. The nature of the flashes indicates another cause.

Edit: I am currently listening to the Hoagland interview. I will let you guys know what he says about the flashes - if he addressed them at all.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Exuberant1]

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:52 AM
reply to post by Exuberant1

I suppose they will HAVE to try and attribute it to something natural then?

Not saying it IS natural. Don't know.

Maybe they will try and say it's STEAM. (I'm joking)

I'm going to think more about it.

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:07 AM
reply to post by sum-one

They might try to attribute to something natural.

But here is NASA's predicament: they certainly cannot admit to anything unnatural causing this - but the natural causes that might account for the flashing do not with fit with the current paradigm so there is also a good chance that they may not address the issue at all.

However, I was thinking that if NASA does say the flashing was geological in origin, they might try to dovetail it into their recent confirmations of water on the moon. But then one would expect them to have discovered water or some other anomalous readings, but this did not happen; neither the expected water or any gases associated with geological activities were detected by the LCROSS instruments...

Perhaps there were other aspects of this mission that the public is still unaware of. Maybe one of the priorities of the LCROSS mission was to observe and take measurements of some kind of other, secret test that the infrared cameras briefly allowed us to see - and which we probably weren't supposed to see.

I do not think that it is a coincidence how the video feed was switched immediately after it became apparent that the flashing was visible. In fact, the cameras that allowed us to see the flashing would have been the most ideal one to use to allow us to observe the impact itself. It is my determination that the visibility of the flashing caused NASA to switch to a separate camera, even though it was far less capable of showing the public the impact than the one with which the flashes were observed.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Exuberant1]

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:08 AM
Wish I could believe this, and I want the answers just as much as the rest of you.

But I'd like to make a prediction of my own. November passes with no disclosure, no mention of aliens from the government, and we get nowhere closer to the truth.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by DocEmrick]

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:17 AM
While I will admit that I have always thought Hoagland went off the deep end in the mid 90's and descended thoroughly into the realm of Quackdom, I do like this.

Hoagland was always at his best when he was attempting to bring out evidence about ruins on the Moon and on Mars. I have an edition of Omni from the late 80's / early 90's with some Very interesting images of crystalline structures on the Moon, as well as intriguing images taken by Apollo 13 when they looped around the darkside during their aborted landing.

In short, he's been a quack for over a decade and a half, But if you were to take one of his claims and seek some truth in it, it should be the Lunar Ruins theory. Humans on the moon thousands of years ago? now I wonder why we would want to cover that up...

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:20 AM

Originally posted by sum-one

Just went onto the Coast to Coast site to try and find it, but from what I can gather you have to pay a small subscription to get stuff from there on your computer. Am I right?

Fair enough if you do. I will be checking YouTube to see if someone puts it there. Couldn't find it when I just looked.

Can't wait to hear the interview and what he has to say.

If you search google.

You can find free past-broadcasts of C2C

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:25 AM
reply to post by Exuberant1

The only thing that comes to mind is could it be some kind of crystal or something caching the light

But it can not be that because it's flashing you know like when you shine a mirror into the sun and move it about.
As this Hoagland interview happened if so has anybody got a link to that show.
Exuberant1 that was a very good post after my post thank you will we get to the bottom of this i hope so.


posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by sum-one

Twenty minutes ago I was pretty much feeling the same way about that video. I felt like it HAD to be a hoax, but I realized that if it was totally real, it would likely seem fake anyway. So I thought maaaybe it was the real deal afterall.

Then i watched another version of that video... and it became clear how much work the previous guy had gone through to doctor it up to make it look more 'moon-like'. youtube link

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:50 AM
conspiracy central torrent tracker


has the Coast2Coast show up..

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:53 AM
I wish someone would post Hoagland's latest interview on Youtube. I heard the interview he gave to Rayelan the day of the impact, but it seemed like he was still trying to piece it together himself that day and was operating on no sleep. She has a podcast on itunes called "Rayedio Lounge" but the Hoagland show isn't up yet.

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:00 PM
reply to post by ljib777

I'm going to indulge myself and say...Wow!
Having been indoctrinated into the Christian fold from birth, I feel like I'm entitled to say...Boo!
When I hear folks launch off into this kind of stuff, I just cringe.

To the OP, I don't see an official disclosure story coming out any time soon, that's just my feeling.

I do think it's a very interesting subject, and I would not be overly surprised if some compelling evidence comes out of this, notwithstanding the probable lack of a NASA endorsement.

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:02 PM

Originally posted by D.E.M.
In short, he's been a quack for over a decade and a half, But if you were to take one of his claims and seek some truth in it, it should be the Lunar Ruins theory. Humans on the moon thousands of years ago? now I wonder why we would want to cover that up...

Its not too far fetched if the claims that Wormwood knocks civilization back every 3600 years and wipes history clean. Its possible that the last time this happened, mankind was not limited to combustion engines like we are now. Perhaps they had a Tesla that was listened to, so antigrav ships was common and they had stations on the moon.

If you have a antigrav ship, you could easily survive the passing of Wormwood.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Copernicus]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in