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.

 

Hoagland's Smoking Gun Pt. II

page: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
So I can't evaluate things and make up my own mind? If I post an article by somone I have to be compleatly in the tank for every word of it?

I thought we could have a discussion, but I guess in your mind we have to either be 100% for or 100% against. Black or white.


I am not talking about every word, I have been primarily discussing his alien dome. And yes, I think this issue is black or white; there is either an alien dome and city there as Hoagland alleges, or there isn't.




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw
 


You said of me: "...an old man with nothing better to do then sit around and be rude on the internet all day..." I was shocked! I could have sworn that you said nude and I was wondering if you had some special optical gift that lets you see me in front of my computer! Phew! I need new glasses!

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Skeptical Ed]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw
 


the last image at the bottom of their website was curious...but a smoking gun, it isn't



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
I’ve been waiting for this discussion for quite a while. Let’s stand back from bashing anyone over the LCROSS incident for a second and look at the wider picture here:
Does Hoagland have some far-out theories? Yes. Does Hoagland have a tendency to bang on and on with his arguments? Yes. Does Hoagland sometimes exaggerate his own claims to fame sometimes? Yes. Does Hoagland have some powerful enemies? Yes!!Did Dark Mission need a decent editor? Yes!!

The above may all be true. But, what Hoagland deserves massive credit for is pointing out to a rather sleepy public that NASA is not the civilian outfit it claims to be. It answers ultimately to the military and is therefore subject to “national defense” interests, which means it can lie to the public about its findings if someone in government deems it in the national interest.
Hoagland also points out that there have been some rather unsavory characters who have served NASA in a high-level capacity. He has also demonstrated that NASA frequently distorts photographic material. Just ask yourself why, until rather recently, we have been fed this picture of the moon as a black & white, lifeless, airless, uninteresting near-neighbor, with Mars a much more appealing subject of study -- despite the MASSIVE improvement in technology and photography since the 1960s moon missions. But suddenly we have India, China and Japan up near the moon, and suddenly we get renewed US interest. And suddenly we have this seep of pictures into the mainstream showing the moon actually has color, may have water, may have atmosphere, may have…. Why you may ask?
Moreover: We haven’t stepped on the moon for over 40 years, apparently. Why not? Apparently it’s easier to build an earth-orbiting space station, than a base on the moon? WHY??? I’ve listened to a variety of BS from NASA scientists right up until the present day (they’re still spouting this on Discovery programs now) but NONE of it makes any sense at all. Readers -- please ponder these questions again, and maybe, like me, you’re going to get very, very angry, and I’m not even a US tax-payer (ie. someone who pays for NASA’s lies and obfuscation).
There can only be 3 answers:
1. Nasa found something on the moon, a long time ago, so frightening in its implications for mankind, they’re still running scared right now. They don’t know how to reveal this information to the public without frightening them. ie. an altruistic motive.
2. Nasa found what is was looking for on the moon (Hoagland’s thesis) a long time ago, namely off-world artifacts of ancient, technologically sophisticated origin and has decided to sit on it for selfish, national defense interests.
3. Nasa (and Russia) were, as some undocumented/unconfirmed reports say, warned off the moon by a superior intelligence.

There’s a great little book out there by Don Wilson “Our Mysterious Space Ship Moon”. It’s one-fifth the size of Hoagland’s work and points out all the glaring problems with conventional theories on the moon. It’s sheer size, how it is made of different material from the earth (there are discrepancies of billions of years in rocks found on the moon compared with rocks on earth), how it is most likely not a natural satellite, it’s weird non-equatorial orbit, the sychronicity of its orbit (ie how we never see the dark side) and all the strange seismographic data, mass anomalies that indicate the thing may be hollow. The list is truly astounding!

I’m also an empiricist, and believe that science progresses on data and verification -- BUT with regard to space, agencies like Nasa possess and control most of the information, so our version of reality is effectively controlled.

I have a message for all you government flunkies out there. The people are on to you, and the Asians are now space-going nations. You have no choice. As Neil Armstrong would say, “It’s time for truth’s protective layers to come off”. You have a lot to lose if you don’t.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by space.odyssey
I’ve been waiting for this discussion for quite a while. Let’s stand back from bashing anyone over the LCROSS incident for a second and look at the wider picture here:
Does Hoagland have some far-out theories? Yes. Does Hoagland have a tendency to bang on and on with his arguments? Yes. Does Hoagland sometimes exaggerate his own claims to fame sometimes? Yes. Does Hoagland have some powerful enemies? Yes!!Did Dark Mission need a decent editor? Yes!!

The above may all be true. But, what Hoagland deserves massive credit for is pointing out to a rather sleepy public that NASA is not the civilian outfit it claims to be. It answers ultimately to the military and is therefore subject to “national defense” interests, which means it can lie to the public about its findings if someone in government deems it in the national interest.
Hoagland also points out that there have been some rather unsavory characters who have served NASA in a high-level capacity. He has also demonstrated that NASA frequently distorts photographic material. Just ask yourself why, until rather recently, we have been fed this picture of the moon as a black & white, lifeless, airless, uninteresting near-neighbor, with Mars a much more appealing subject of study -- despite the MASSIVE improvement in technology and photography since the 1960s moon missions. But suddenly we have India, China and Japan up near the moon, and suddenly we get renewed US interest. And suddenly we have this seep of pictures into the mainstream showing the moon actually has color, may have water, may have atmosphere, may have…. Why you may ask?
Moreover: We haven’t stepped on the moon for over 40 years, apparently. Why not? Apparently it’s easier to build an earth-orbiting space station, than a base on the moon? WHY??? I’ve listened to a variety of BS from NASA scientists right up until the present day (they’re still spouting this on Discovery programs now) but NONE of it makes any sense at all. Readers -- please ponder these questions again, and maybe, like me, you’re going to get very, very angry, and I’m not even a US tax-payer (ie. someone who pays for NASA’s lies and obfuscation).
There can only be 3 answers:
1. Nasa found something on the moon, a long time ago, so frightening in its implications for mankind, they’re still running scared right now. They don’t know how to reveal this information to the public without frightening them. ie. an altruistic motive.
2. Nasa found what is was looking for on the moon (Hoagland’s thesis) a long time ago, namely off-world artifacts of ancient, technologically sophisticated origin and has decided to sit on it for selfish, national defense interests.
3. Nasa (and Russia) were, as some undocumented/unconfirmed reports say, warned off the moon by a superior intelligence.

There’s a great little book out there by Don Wilson “Our Mysterious Space Ship Moon”. It’s one-fifth the size of Hoagland’s work and points out all the glaring problems with conventional theories on the moon. It’s sheer size, how it is made of different material from the earth (there are discrepancies of billions of years in rocks found on the moon compared with rocks on earth), how it is most likely not a natural satellite, it’s weird non-equatorial orbit, the sychronicity of its orbit (ie how we never see the dark side) and all the strange seismographic data, mass anomalies that indicate the thing may be hollow. The list is truly astounding!

I’m also an empiricist, and believe that science progresses on data and verification -- BUT with regard to space, agencies like Nasa possess and control most of the information, so our version of reality is effectively controlled.

I have a message for all you government flunkies out there. The people are on to you, and the Asians are now space-going nations. You have no choice. As Neil Armstrong would say, “It’s time for truth’s protective layers to come off”. You have a lot to lose if you don’t.




Thanks for bringing some friking balance and logic back into this debate!!
This is a key point to remember, NASA simply does not serve the public first, that alone should ring alarm bells, then theres the intriguing brookings report.

Those two factors together with NASAs history of BS immedietly discredit any "official" details in regards to space if you ask me, its up to us to pull what we can from all angles.

TBH I dont know how people can look at some of the amazing pictures of "ruins" throughout the solar system and so quickly descredit them, when the only logical explanation, whether immedietly provable or not, is an artificial construct of sorts.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by space.odyssey
 


very well said.... thank you

this is my second line....



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
[edit on 27-10-2009 by buster_cannon]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

Originally posted by dennisdvx
I have read Hoagland's article and I find it informative. The issue is not hoagland or how he presents his evidence or theories, the issue is... and always has been, is there evidence of any prior or current civilization on the Moon?... (not to exclude Mars, but the Moon is the subject of this original post). I have resorted to using what is available at hand to further my own research into this subject. I have some images taken from Google Moon (P/O Google Earth) that I find extremely interesting. All are from Tycho Crater with the one exception titled 'vehicle' which is near the Apollo 15 landing site. There are 25 images with coordinates for those who would like to look for themselves. You should keep an open mind in doing so. Look for geometry and rectiliniarity and also shadow angles. Tycho is one of the few areas in google moon with decent enough resolution to see anything worthwhile, even though it is heavily obfuscated and image tampered with. The tampering is probably the most obvious thing you might notice when looking around Tycho. If there is nothing to hide... then why the image tampering?
s615.photobucket.com...

d

[edit on 26-10-2009 by dennisdvx]


Are your images of Tycho better than these 2 PLATES which show nothing but natural formations. If your images are better, please point to where you see unnatural formations and I'll look at the same photos as in the links in my copy of the ATLAS but with slightly higher resolution.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

[edit on 26-10-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

Well, first of all, the images that I am using (Google Moon) are from virtually all over Tycho and at a very low altitude. I can only suggest you go to Google Moon and using the coordinates on my images, get the locations. You can zoom in and out and get a good overall idea of where these images are located. Then, go to your Atlas and see what you can see. Unless you can zoom into your Atlas image... I doubt you will see anything. Try Google Moon.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by benzjie


There are no domes on the moon ...there are no domes on the moon ...there are no domes on the moon





ser.sese.asu.edu...


[edit on 26-10-2009 by benzjie]




Hello benzjie.

The photo you refer to looks very similar to one that was found on images
posted about anomlies found on Antarctica. There is a very distinct "Dome"
in one of the shots.
Have a look
www.abovetopsecret.com...
( » Fragile Earth » Very unusual holes/openings/entrances found in Antartica )


[edit on 27-10-2009 by azureskys]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 



Okay, 1,2,3, and go...Tell us why Hoagland is wrong and all that other good stuff too...Don't worry not too many of us are holding our breathe.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
The LCROSS mission was doomed to be assaulted by conspiracy theorists from the get-go, it didn't matter how high the plume was, how visible or why it was really sent there. I personally think it was sent there for the reasons given by NASA, but that's me. If NASA was the governments puppet to discover more about "aliens on the moon," I don't think they would be attempting to cut their funding as they are.

But Hoagland... he imo, is a hack. He is really wandering towards Sitchen's domain of making wild theories based on the most flimsy "proof" he can cling to, and then creating elaborate theories about coverups of mass amounts of alien "domes" based on these "facts."

He'll need to bait his hook a WHOLE lot better before I am willing to swallow it along with the sinker.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Skeptical Ed, I am going to say that you and I are in the same age bracket. So.. now with all the photos and information you possess, you are saying you have never found anything but natural formations on the moon? From what you said on page 5, you should have come across something that would have caught your eye, I mean really!! The reason I don't post is I don't have a scanner as of yet. And being an ancient one myself, I am just learning to use a computer.
Now ... I am with these younger ones on here who does think there is something up there. I will admit that some of the images posted I don't see anything. But .. then these people may have an eye for this stuff... which Sir, I am sorry to say you may not .
I am female. so don't feel you have to be polite. I been called a lot of things in my ancient time, so I am pretty much conditioned to it.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw
 



I read the link. Stared and squinted at the pictured.

Maybe I'm not seeing this correctly, but for all of Hoagland's talk about right angles, all I'm seeing are the angles created by hundreds of square pixels making up these terrifically substandard NASA images.

I dig Hoagland's mission, and admire his energy and enthusiasm. But I'm just not seeing what he's seeing, and have to say that his referencing of Forbidden Planet does not boost his credibility. Then again, I have the same problem with people who cite Star Trek Canon-Approved Engineering in discussions of space travel.

There is definitely something fishy about the whole LCROSS thing, but I think Hoagland's gone in an odd direction here.

Then again, I've been wondering if the reason there was no impressive impact was due to the projectiles being destroyed before they could hit anything, so I'm not really in a position to throw stones.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustJoe
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 



Okay, 1,2,3, and go...Tell us why Hoagland is wrong and all that other good stuff too...Don't worry not too many of us are holding our breathe.


Tell you what, why don't you tell me what he is right about and all that other good stuff? I would think those that make outrageous and ignorant claims and those that follow them would be able to defend their position in a manner that those of us with half a brain could counter. Pareidolia explains the majority of his ignorance, and common sense, reason and logic easily refute all his other claims.

Seriously, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence Hoagland presents IS NOT EVIDENCE, it is nothing more than an ignorant interpretation of reality..and that sucks a lot of people in, because they so desperately want to believe in his reality. But his crap falls apart with even a cursory examination. Unfortunately, many folks that follow his ignorance don't even understand a simple explanation about where Hoagland is wrong, and counter logical points with stuff like "oh, yeah, but but it looks like a moon base to me?!?!? so your wrong and prolly workin' for teh man....."

It is IMPOSSIBLE to convince a Hoagland follower that they are seriously misguided and ignorant. Can't be done. They treat this fool's misguided and ignorant rantings as if they come from their favorite preacher or something and will fight tooth and nail against logic, reason and common sense in order to defend their fantasy.

And when I say ignorant, I am meaning ignorant defined as a lack of knowledge. I'm sick of people being too ignorant to know the meaning of ignorant and accusing me of calling them stupid, when I only called them ignorant. There is a big difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance would be following someone like Hoagland without knowing the basics, stupidity would be following him after a even a moderate exposure to education.

O.K. I keed, I keed. Have a sense of humor for crying out loud.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by IgnoreTheFacts]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by azureskys
Although i have a hard time seeing many of Hoaglands "anomalies" as other than natural formations, there are a few that just don't ring as natural with me.

With that said .. the most outstanding question i have about the Earth's Moon is:
Why dont we have anything crawling all over Luna snapping photos, retrieving samples and testing them like is being done on Mars ?
This makes zero sense to me.

Why do we only take photos of it ?
(with the exception of the early exploration and the recent attempt)


That is the 64,000 dollar question. All of these probes rolling around the Mars surface and being tested, they could easily test them on the moon. It's alot closer and you can literally move it real time (give or take a few seconds between commands becaust of the distance). Russia did it during the Apollo missions. If you google Tank on the Moon (they had a special on the Science Channel), They had two of them for 16 months being guided from earth taking pictures and sending back data. They moved over 30 miles on the surface of the moon. The Americans never thought about using a robotic roving craft until 1996 and that was on mars (you would have thought they would have practiced on the moon first).

With the technology we have today, we could easily have vehicles moving around on the surface doing a very detailed scan of the surface. Also they could be large enough to have a sizeable digger that could drill down into the surface and even have a return mission of the core samples. Also I do believe with the Indian probe that was scanning the surface of the moon going out and other probes, that we have better pictures of the surface (remember don't have to worry about atmosphere scattering of light), but they always show the low resolution ones. They don't want us to see what is on the surface in any detail because it would be impossible for them to explain away that rectangular building or that shape etc. etc.. Just look at google earth, and the way we can see even our own houses and such, you know what your looking at. Those images are being done with imaging cameras that are not that good, believe me. I've seen images from the newer generation of cameras that was High Definition.

It's the little things, the little things that always give away a conspiracy or a secret. All of a sudden no more MOON, except orbits and passby's and finally a crash by part of the vehicles to look for water when they could have landed a vehicle on the surface with instruments to check the crater for water. And the low resolution pictures that are still being circulated from the late 1960's and 1970's along with what is allowed from the observatories on the earth through atmosphere. The moon isn't important anymore? No, something was found out and it pretty much told us everything we needed to know about the moon and our place in the universe. Do I believe that their is a massive glass dome on the other side of the moon, not really. But could their be many structures on the moon that could be throwing off weird refractions and heat or coolness where it shouldn't, maybe.

If we are to go out into space and start to explore, it makes better sense to try our hand at controlling the moon environment and designing new materials and techniques from the trial and error of doing stuff on the moon.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by space.odyssey
... the Asians are now space-going nations. You have no choice. As Neil Armstrong would say, “It’s time for truth’s protective layers to come off”. You have a lot to lose if you don’t.


Well written post! Problem is Japan and India are also in on it. Have you seen their HD resolution pics? What a joke.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Wow, hoagland is a flipping ignorant fool. How anyone could read this article and get hyped up just blows my mind. Are there that many people that would follow this guy? Seriously, read his article.

I would tell anyone on here with half a brain to read this article, it is well worth the laugh and demonstrates the ignorance level of the average person that would swallow hoagland's tripe and then eagerly ask for more.

His assertions in this article are absurd. They defy logic, reason and common sense...but don't let that stop you from drinking the Hoagland flavored Kool-Aid.


Aww, you beat me to it.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Hoagland's mid-infrared pic threw me for a second until I realized that any extremely hot surface (lunar noon above 250 F) will radiate heat. And it makes sense that the cooler parts don't emit radiation into space, therefore there is no "curving yellow line" at those regions. It puzzles me that Mr. Hoagland doesn't know this.



Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation emitted from the surface of an object which is due to the object's temperature. An example of thermal radiation is the infrared radiation emitted by a common household radiator or electric heater.

source: wiki

A two second wiki check would have saved him a lot of work ...



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
The government is very scared about the extraterrestrials. Very scared.

They aren't scared in the sense that the aliens are malevolent and there is nothing they can do about it and knowing that they don't want us to be concerned. Oh because all know so well how much the government "cares" so much about its citizens, especially with how they've kept this charade of a war going on the Middle-East for no reason at all except to distract our attention, which they've realize isn't working so well as they had thought.

So now they've come up with two new agents of "hope," as I guess you could call it.

Hope they can do something before 2012 and the revolution of benevolent aliens making life better for us all begins.

They tried to act on bombing the moon, because they wanted the aliens to zap it. They gave full announcement of this act (bombing the moon) with a false idea behind it (fool's gold, or water in this instance) deliberately so when the aliens do zap it, we would be all surprised and scared. Then the government would act to pamper us and drive even more fear into us with their second act (a new movie we all know as the "Fourth Kind") to prevent any such revolution to take place.

The government is getting desperate and it backfired, because of the following:

1) All extraterrestrials that have visited the Earth are telepathic (aka read minds). So they knew what was going on well before it was implemented. Probably laughing at how ridiculous the attempt was, when they acted to neutralize it.

2) All extraterrestrials that have visited the Earth are much smarter than humans. They knew how to react to this manner in a way that made Dick Cheney slap himself in the face or palm to face as you could say.


They are running out of time and they know eventually that what will occur shall occur and there isn't a thing they can do to stop it. They will made powerless just as they made their own people powerless against them. That is what the extraterrestrials have promised on our behalf.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dennisdvx
snip
Are your images of Tycho better than these 2 PLATES which show nothing but natural formations. If your images are better, please point to where you see unnatural formations and I'll look at the same photos as in the links in my copy of the ATLAS but with slightly higher resolution.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

[edit on 26-10-2009 by Skeptical Ed]


Well, first of all, the images that I am using (Google Moon) are from virtually all over Tycho and at a very low altitude. I can only suggest you go to Google Moon and using the coordinates on my images, get the locations. You can zoom in and out and get a good overall idea of where these images are located. Then, go to your Atlas and see what you can see. Unless you can zoom into your Atlas image... I doubt you will see anything. Try Google Moon.


I went to your photobucket and looked at some, not all, of the photos you feature of, as you said, Crater Tycho. I went with an open mind, expecting to see something new, something different. I was disappointed. All I saw were blurry photos that seem, by the process used, to create blocking which makes it look like there are human-constructed structures. There was something disappointing about the quality of the photos so I went to google moon and clicked on About Google Moon. It says that the images used, in addition to maps and charts, were derived from the Clementine mission. IMO, the Clementine Mission did not return superior high resolution photography. The images are not crisp, they're sort-of soft. The Crater Ukert is a good example of comparison. The Clementine photo of Ukert makes it look like the center peak is a rim-to-rim triangle when the better photo from L.O. IV shows it as it really is. Clementine Ukert seems to have fooled Hoagland, as opposed to L.O. IV which would not have. BTW, you can't see Hoagland's "castle" with Clementine! If he was right this would have been the clincher.

I'd like to tell you that I was impressed but to me, the Lunar Orbiter photos are superior. Now, I have NASA books and even though the ATLAS features large PLATES which still doesn't allow the kind of closeups I'd prefer, what one can do and which I did for one photo is order large, poster size prints and slides. The slides are the better choice to the posters because you can project them way bigger than the posters. Then you can see superb closeups. I'm not going to order anything as I don't think that there is anything worthwhile seeing.

Why Tycho? Google Moon would give you the same results for any area you selected. Do you really think that there are alien structures covering the surface of the moon and they didn't appear in any of the pre-Clementine missions?


[edit on 28-10-2009 by Skeptical Ed]



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join