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: 8
37
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by space.odyssey
snip
As I’ve previously argued ( see Hoghead Cheese too) the POINT is why are we still dependent on these extremely basic, low resolution, low tech pictures?
snip
I’m not anti-American and I guess the decision on this cover-up goes wide -- probably including the Vatican, other leading nations, and all those concerned with world stability. And yes, the Japanese and the Indians also seem to be suppressing the evidence, although the Indians seem keen to let the cat out of the bag. Sometimes you have to use your “intuition” to see the bigger picture

My likely guess is this:
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. So we have a managed process in place to slowly reveal the bigger picture to the public.


We are "...not dependent on these extremely basic, low resolution, low tech pictures? ..." You may be because you depend on photos only from the Internet. But as I've stated over and over, NASA published a lot of publications with high resolution photos. National Geographic featured moon photos on a few of its issues. You can order high resolution poster-size prints and slides which you can project bigger than anything you can imagine.

Don't continue complaining. Look for the sources, they're out there and available. National Geos go for .25 cents in thrift stores. Public library book sales sometimes offer the NASA books. There's a bargain on eBay right now and it's the Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas Of The Moon for only $146. That's a bargain! If I didn't have a copy I'd spring for it.




posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
We are told there is none.


You are absolutely, 100% wrong. "We" are not being told there is none. If "you" are being told that.....the people telling you that are misinformed, intentionally misleading you, or stupid.


What ever. We all know there is a tenuous layer of gasses around the Moon. I never said there wasn't. You are trying to argue with me about things you want me to belive rather than what I have said... Or what RCH has said for that matter.

So the Moon technically has a very thin almost non-existant atmosphere so what? One of the reasons building a base on the Moon is a good idea is because we can do research and manufacture materials in a vacume. The vacume around the Moon is better than any vacume we can create in a lab on Earth. That is because for all practicle purposes the Moon has no atmosphere.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shere Khaan
I have told you repeatedly why and you ignore it. It's diffraction of the infrared light. Shine a torch at a hanging sphere, you will see that the light bends around the sphere and you will get a bright spot in the middle of the shadow at a certain distance.

Demanding scientific proof from skeptics when hoagland only presents a low res 360 pixel screenshot of a modified image is not rational. How about demaning one shred of proof from Hoagland?


Oh, so now you don't think that it was caused by some radiation heating up the emptyness of space like you were doing in the last post. You even said I was 100% wrong if I'm not mistaken. But I was right and you know it! Why don't you inform the other poster of his misunderstanding of science? Isn't that what you are here to do? Correct people about science and show them the truth?

NO! You are not here to promote the truth. You even backed up this crazy idea that the void of space would be heated up by radiation even though you knew it was wrong! Now you are on to a different explanation.

And as for your new explanation... Well, to be honest I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say. Got a you tube vid, or some pictures that illustrate this? Seriously, I don't understand what you mean... If I point a flashlight at a basketball the shadow behind the ball will have a bright spot in it? I don't think so. Are you saying that in the pic the sun is directly behind the Moon and that is why we see a ring of light? I guess that sort of makes sence but can you prove the sun is hidden behind the Moon in that picture? I doubt it. But then again I'm not even sure if that's what you are trying to say.


[edit on 28-10-2009 by fieryjaguarpaw]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw

Originally posted by Shere Khaan
I have told you repeatedly why and you ignore it. It's diffraction of the infrared light. Shine a torch at a hanging sphere, you will see that the light bends around the sphere and you will get a bright spot in the middle of the shadow at a certain distance.

Demanding scientific proof from skeptics when hoagland only presents a low res 360 pixel screenshot of a modified image is not rational. How about demaning one shred of proof from Hoagland?


Oh, so now you don't think that it was caused by some radiation heating up the emptyness of space like you were doing in the last post. You even said I was 100% wrong if I'm not mistaken. But I was right and you know it! Why don't you inform the other poster of his misunderstanding of science? Isn't that what you are here to do? Correct people about science and show them the truth?

NO! You are not here to promote the truth. You even backed up this crazy idea that the void of space would be heated up by radiation even though you knew it was wrong! Now you are on to a different explanation.


Find the quote from me that I said that the void of space heating was behind it or retract your accusation and apologise. You'll find all I said was that infrared propagates through space. It means travel through with respect to electromagnetic radiation.



And as for your new explanation... Well, to be honest I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say. Got a you tube vid, or some pictures that illustrate this? Seriously, I don't understand what you mean... If I point a flashlight at a basketball the shadow behind the ball will have a bright spot in it? I don't think so. Are you saying that in the pic the sun is directly behind the Moon and that is why we see a ring of light? I guess that sort of makes sence but can you prove the sun is hidden behind the Moon in that picture? I doubt it. But then again I'm not even sure if that's what you are trying to say.


My explanation is the same from the start.

Not all science is on Youtube. The illustration I gave is of a known effect of how light diffracts around a round object. Here is a Scientific paper on the effect in when comparing the effect of a disc to a sphere. The sun is definitely not behind the moon given the picture and direction of heat; however, the fact is that you will get variations of his effect depending on your point of view and the radiating and reflected infrared light will create this effect to a certain extent from the perspective of LCROSS.

So when you go back and read Hoagland:


"That" is the combined effect of "countless numbers of semi-transparent, heat-radiating, ancient lunar structures ..." all blending together ... along a substantial section of the horizon of the Farside of the Moon ....

They have "given themselves away" by their intrinsic thermal heating from the Sun ... and then, re-radiation of that heat back into space ... which the sensitive LCROSS' IR cameras immediately picked up -- and then displayed as that "room temperature" yellow-arc stretching above the real, higher-temperature (red) lunar surface.

The potential extent of these artificial lunar structures -- stretching along a major segment of the total visible horizon! -- may surprise some new to our lunar investigations; it shouldn't.


You need to ask yourself simple questions like how can he tell this with a one or two pixel band? and if these domes are collecting the radiation from the sun how are the radiating it evenly?

[edit on 29/10/09 by Shere Khaan]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Here's the quote where you defend the bunk science, knowing full well that I was right all along. Radiation does not heat up the emptyness of space.


Originally posted by Shere Khaan

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
The difference is that the Moon isn't supposed to have an atmosphere. You need a medium to conduct the heat in and the Moon does not have one... or so we are told. So in short, NO. Your explination doesn't hold water.



Sorry but you are just plain wrong. Infrared is electromagnetic radiation or "light". It propagates through space just fine without a medium, how do you think he suns light gets to us? You are thinking about sound waves which travel via the atmosphere.

You've been arguing about what infrared images show and you don't even understand what it is?

Edit: And the person who starred your post also shows how little they know about basic scientific concepts.

[edit on 28/10/09 by Shere Khaan]


Sure, you could say that you only say it "propogates" through space and doesn't actually heat it, but heating space is what we were talking about and what you were refuting. Neither I or the other guy used the word "propogate". So there you go you called me wrong when you knew I wasn't! You chose your words well enough, but I think anyone with an objective mind will plainly see that you were trying to convince me that what the other poster was saying was correct when we both know that he was wrong. You were trying to confuse the issue.

The word I used was conduct, and You do need a physical medium to conduct heat. That the Sun heats the Moon is irrelivant to the conversation.

Meh.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Infact maybe you should appologize to me!

I am not "just plain wrong", I was compleatly correct.

Recently it has been revealed by NASA that some of the coldest places in the solar system are in the permenately shadowed craters of the Moon. Why is this? Because there is no (significant) atmosphere! Therfore it is much harder for the insides of these permenately shadowed craters to heat up. There is nothing in the "air" for the heat to move through.

OK I'm officially done with this point though. We are going around in circles and it's obvious to me that you aren't even being intellectually honest. Besides this thread isn't even about that photo! It's about the stuff in the second part of Hogland's paper.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
To skeptikal ed: thanks for yr reply but do you take me for a complete fool? who said i'm reliant on the internet?

I AM RELIANT ON NASA! AND SO IS EVERYONE IN THIS CHAT ROOM. THAT'S WHAT IM SAYING.

i dont care if nasa has published glossy pics (from a long way up and carefully selected). what im saying is why isn't there full-blown, open access to HD pictures in real-time, right now!!! given the advance of technology since 1969 (just think about it for a moment) it is UNBELIEVABLE that we are still scratching around and fighting over issues as in this thread. this is my last post so you guys either get it or you dont.

the point is -- every single argument advanced in this thread can be answered. it's like we're discussing whether or not man can fly when we've had airplanes for 100 years. the problem is -- the EVIDENCE is being kept from us. it's staring you in the face.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by space.odyssey
To skeptikal ed: thanks for yr reply but do you take me for a complete fool? who said i'm reliant on the internet?

I AM RELIANT ON NASA! AND SO IS EVERYONE IN THIS CHAT ROOM. THAT'S WHAT IM SAYING.

i dont care if nasa has published glossy pics (from a long way up and carefully selected). what im saying is why isn't there full-blown, open access to HD pictures in real-time, right now!!! given the advance of technology since 1969 (just think about it for a moment) it is UNBELIEVABLE that we are still scratching around and fighting over issues as in this thread. this is my last post so you guys either get it or you dont.

the point is -- every single argument advanced in this thread can be answered. it's like we're discussing whether or not man can fly when we've had airplanes for 100 years. the problem is -- the EVIDENCE is being kept from us. it's staring you in the face.





Agreed, your point should really be taken on board, I mean in reality the taxpayers who fund the missions should be allowed a much more integral part in them, maybe online pollls for particular areas of interest to be photographed, real time webcam footage of the entire mission for free, access to EVERY hi-res photo at an online archive, complete transparency, and until we get that Ed, you can read all the National Geographic issues you want, you are not getting the full unedited picture either.

And I really believe if youve looked at my thread and really looked at the "DEBRISHIP" anomaly, and concluded that its natural, you are gonna have to come up with some sort of guess at least as to what it could be, cause darned If Ive ever seen a natural formation like that.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
OK, you guys want proof that Hoags is a nut. Well he's a supporter of John Lear for starters. One of the greatest bullsh#ters of the 20th and 21st century. People "just like us" living on ALL of the planets of our solar system...only smaller or larger depending on the gravity...give me a frooting break!

When I was young, friends of mine and myself would stare at rock cliffs and see how many faces or whatever we could see. You can see amazing things in natural formations. Also, after reading my first (and only) Hoagland book I thought, "this guy is a tool, I bet I can go out and find a cubic looking rock.(in the book he was on about machines on mars..ha ha ) and in about an hour I found a VERY cubic looking piece of rock. It had split off from some sand stone that was in neat layers...as it often is.

Don't be so dopey people!



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
You see, us skeptics are in our own bombastic, maybe rude, but often humorous way, trying to do you guys a favour. When we say "go out and look at some dirt and rocks" we mean just that. Go and do it!... You WILL find right angles, squares, cubes, pyramids, faces, animals..what ever the hell you want. And don't just do it for five minutes...do it for a week...every day....and until you do stop posting this mindless rubbish.


And for god's sake get a grip on pixilation! Look it up. Get a photo of your face and blow it up...LOOK...Moon bases on your face! B#gger me!




[edit on 29-10-2009 by mrwiffler]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrwiffler
You see, us skeptics are in our own bombastic, maybe rude, but often humorous way, trying to do you guys a favour. When we say "go out and look at some dirt and rocks" we mean just that. Go and do it!... You WILL find right angles, squares, cubes, pyramids, faces, animals..what ever the hell you want. And don't just do it for five minutes...do it for a week...every day....and until you do stop posting this mindless rubbish.


And for god's sake get a grip on pixilation! Look it up. Get a photo of your face and blow it up...LOOK...Moon bases on your face! B#gger me!




[edit on 29-10-2009 by mrwiffler]



Thank you for showing us the light, your implication whether you meant it or not that all right angles, squares, cubes etc can only be natural formations is nothing short of nonsensical, repeating, consistent geometry has been found to be present in many images from multiple sloar system bodies, that as, Carl Sagan said is a sign of civilisation, of intelligence, so please excuse us eejits for extrapolating such insane concepts.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
I don't know what the hell your talking about. ONLY found? Where did I say that?
Good lord please get a grip.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrwiffler
I don't know what the hell your talking about. ONLY found? Where did I say that?
Good lord please get a grip.


If you had read my post you would notice that in fact I didint say you said that, just read a tad more carefully next time, wouldint want to make something outta nothing.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by Outlawstar]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
The way NASA thinks it wouldn't surprise me if they were thinking.... let's shake it up there to see if we can catch any of the Alien ships leaving there bases so we can find there enter/exit zones.

If the Hubble has cameras that can give us pictures like it does wouldn't it be logical they would use cameras like that for the Moon/Mars.

One set of cameras for us one set for them........ I would think



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustSayin
Hoagland has been touting "imminent disclosure" and his so-called 'smoking guns' so often throughout the years that he has essentially reduced himself to that of the 'boy who cried wolf.'

His purported evidence of civilizations on Mars or the moon is laughable at best.

Funny how he ALWAYS seems to have "originally posted" NASA images that he snagged off of their site BEFORE they swapped them out with phony ones...LMAO

And even then, these so-called original images don't show anything beyond the everyday illusions of seeing 'bunnies' (or whatever shapes) in clouds... I forget the term for this type of perceptual illusion but I bet Hoagland can lie on his back and see ALL kinds of interesting shapes in the clouds.

Hoaxland DOES love hearing himself talk.




well, thats what i think, too. good conclusion.
perhaps THIS is his real job? keeping people busy with..stories? whats that called?....



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrwiffler
OK, you guys want proof that Hoags is a nut. Well he's a supporter of John Lear for starters. One of the greatest bullsh#ters of the 20th and 21st century. People "just like us" living on ALL of the planets of our solar system...only smaller or larger depending on the gravity...give me a frooting break!

When I was young, friends of mine and myself would stare at rock cliffs and see how many faces or whatever we could see. You can see amazing things in natural formations. Also, after reading my first (and only) Hoagland book I thought, "this guy is a tool, I bet I can go out and find a cubic looking rock.(in the book he was on about machines on mars..ha ha ) and in about an hour I found a VERY cubic looking piece of rock. It had split off from some sand stone that was in neat layers...as it often is.

Don't be so dopey people!



This was your point???

Maybe you need to do some meditation and affirm "I will tune out the negative to be open to perceive what I need to see!" And then go listen to them both some more.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
@ Skeptical Ed : I own the " Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas Of The Moon " by Bowker and Hughes. It is right now on my knees !
It really is an atlas that all researcher should have, I agree.
But, say, as you did , the pics are so good and clear ?? Very sorry, but I disagree ...
Maybe it was in 1971, wich is the year of print for mine, but I think since 71 we should have obtained from Nasa and others photos with much more quality.

What we have now with Chandrayan, Jaxa and Nasa, isn't in anyway better than 1971' pics
Where is the big joke ? tell me please ?

Sorry for my poor English, I don't practice so much, that time



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Just to add : it's easy to find oddities on the moon, very very strange things, but these things are " moon anomalies ". how can we say it's ETs product ?

If I got time, i'll send some pics very bizarre ! without explanation, but just " moon's things " ...

Have a good day !



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Outlawstar
snip
And I really believe if youve looked at my thread and really looked at the "DEBRISHIP" anomaly, and concluded that its natural, you are gonna have to come up with some sort of guess at least as to what it could be, cause darned If Ive ever seen a natural formation like that.


Because I'm curious about your "DEBRISHIP" and I'd like to take a crack at it, I just did a search and couldn't find a thread with the title
"DEBRISHIP". What thread title is it under?



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 


"Well he's a supporter of John Lear for starters." Oh, oh! Boy did you say the wrong thing! Don't you know that ATS contains a huge amount of Lear believers and supporters? If your reply gets out, you are going to be flooded with insults.

I do agree with you, though, based on Lear's own words that he's nut #1 on ATS!




top topics



 
37
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join