Apollo 12's Covert EVA , Are E.T.'s the reason for the Secrecy ?

Originally posted by easynow

Originally posted by mcrom901

love the opening..... "the moon is essentially grey.... no colour"....

jeeeze you can't help but to laugh when you listen to that clip

thanks

The person who said that was describing exactly what he was observing --- and what he was observing was a Moon that was essentially grey with no color.

If the area of the Moon he was looking at looked grey, how else would you expect him to describe it?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


what was all that fuss with the lcross mission & the whole water business...

as if that was not known.....

these were my comments a few months back....

and what is that going to be 1000 cbm of ice....... in a more updated form...... i.e. + details of exact locations.... after so many moon missions.......

and for what purpose...... resources for astronauts who will stay there for extended periods..... god knows when... or lunar habitation...

i suppose they also plan to install water purification systems.... just in case...... oh... i almost forgot the 'essential' fluoride fortification needs....

well...... they should first try & put man 'back' on the moon..... then start exploring all these 'exotic' projects......

anyways.... the experiments conducted via the clamentine mission....... had already confirmed the presence of water near the lunar surface..... so......

after which the lunar prospector was launched a few years later (i.e. a decade ago) to look for 'polar ice deposits'.... + more mapping..... at what price...... $62.8 million

and guess what....... during these troubled times..... how much do you think are the costs of the 'current' mission...... lcross @ $79m +lunar reconnaissance orbiter @ $504m

and what is the purpose of this 'lro'....... to map out the lunar surface in regards to targeted landing sites for future missions.......... are they counting the dust particles....

these details are the facts that have been released to the public sector by nasa........ i suppose thats about it..... very simple....... 'all details have been thrown into light'......

slow and easy....... just like the confirmation which surfaced in 2008 that small amounts of water had been found in moon samples brought back by the apollo-15 in 1971........

so many missions..... all mapping the lunar surface......... then how come they so forgot to mention anything about the lunar orbiters which date back to the sixties......

out of sheer co-incidence...... just very recently the 'restored images' of the lunar south pole were released...... from the lunar orbiter missions dating back to 1967.....

nasa's stated policies are just a myth..... get over it.......

reply to post by LunaCognita

The people that say NASA is hiding information don't seem to realize that most of the speculation on life in our solar system comes from NASA scientists. NASA is suppressing information about life elsewhere -- they are leading the effort to look for it. If it wasn't for NASA's planetary biologists, there would be hardly any talk at all about life elsewhere.

For example, here is a speculative paper written by a NASA scientist and posted on a NASA website. This paper is by a scientist at NASA's John Glenn Research Center, and it's a highly speculative piece on the possibility of life on Venus (especially in the clouds of Venus).

Here is an excerpt:

3.3 Present Life
Could bacterial life exist in the atmosphere of Venus today? Although this is considered unlikely, the possibility of life in the clouds or the middle atmosphere of Venus has not been ruled out by any observations made to date. While the atmosphere is both dry and acidic, extremophilic life has adapted to far more harsh conditions on Earth. There is some evidence that the trace-gas constituents of the Venus atmosphere are not in chemical equilibrium with each other. On Earth, the primary source of disequilibrium in the atmospheric chemistry is the activities of biological processing; could disequilibrium on Venus also be a sign of life? In 1997, David Grinspoon made the suggestion that microbes in the clouds and middle atmosphere could be the source of the disequilibrium. In 2002, Dirk Schulze-Makuch independently proposed that observations of the Venus atmosphere by space probes showed signatures of possible biological activity.

As noted by Grinspoon and Schulze-Makuch, the Venus atmosphere has several trace gasses which are not in chemical equilibrium. The Venera missions and the Pioneer Venus and Magellan probes found that carbon monoxide is scarce in the planet’s atmosphere, although solar radiation and lightning should produce it abundantly from carbon dioxide. Hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide, two gases which react with each other and thus should not be found together, are also both present, indicating some process (possibly biological?) is producing them. Finally, although carbonyl sulfide is difficult to produce inorganically, it is present in the Venusian atmosphere. On Earth, this gas would be considered an unambiguous indicator of biological activity. While none of these chemical combinations are in themselves an unambiguous sign of life, it is interesting enough to warrant a more careful look at the atmospheric chemistry.

Here's a link to the whole PDF file: Astrobiology: The Case for Venus

Someday, if life is ever found in the clouds of Venus, I'm sure some conspiracy theorist on ATS will start a thread saying "NASA lied to us about Venus...There IS life!", even though NASA clearly has shown to be the ones who publicly speculated on this life in the first place -- and if NASA does find life in the clouds of Venus, it is probably they spent millions of dollars designing a space probe to specifically look for that life.

NASA has plenty of speculation about the solar system and the possibilities for life. Don't blame NASA if the general public does not take the time to learn about this speculation. Someday, there will be missions designed to test these hypotheses, and someday life may be found.


[edit on 11/26/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
If the area of the Moon he was looking at looked grey, how else would you expect him to describe it?

unless he was colour-blind......... or was looking through the b/w monitor......

or was reading out the instructions.....

or was repeating what was being dictated through the secured channel....

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Someday, there will be missions designed to test these hypotheses, and someday life may be found.

yeah right......

Google Video Link

check out the planetary protection officer there..... mib wannabe.....

if they are so speculative as you claim.... how is it... that they are only interested in their own experiments & gathered evidence.....

simply....... the indian red rain was 'SUPPRESSED'......

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I'm really confused

yes i agree , you are

how hard is it to understand the the line quoted from the article ? it's been argued and taught for a hundred years that the Moon is dead but with the latest releases of info we know that's not true. it's a pretty simple concept and your confusion is self inflicted from oversimplifications.

Apparently it's harder to understand the line quoted from the article than you think. Thanks for the reply but it did little to clear up my confusion, did we discover life on the moon and I missed the announcement? Is that why you say it's not dead?

Also, nice picture, but if it was supposed to support your argument that the moon isn't dead, it might need a little more explanation as to how to interpret it that way.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

did we discover life on the moon and I missed the announcement?

maybe

Michio Kaku believes that if life was found they wouldn't tell us and i agree with him. how about you ?

Also, nice picture, but if it was supposed to support your argument that the moon isn't dead, it might need a little more explanation as to how to interpret it that way.

it supports the case of "Dead Moon Dictum" but i see you didn't understand that or you did and you just like to hear me talk ?

reply to post by easynow

Of course I like to hear you talk, but that picture is from Japan's space agency, are they in on the conspiracy too?

Yes I heard Michiu Kaku's speculation on that before, it's interesting.

But I'm not even sure how we would have detected life on the moon, have we sent life detecting missions there too or just to Mars?

Originally posted by mcrom901...if they are so speculative as you claim.... how is it... that they are only interested in their own experiments & gathered evidence.....

simply....... the indian red rain was 'SUPPRESSED'......

How so? The red rain and its possible connection to the Panspermia hypothesis is something I heard about (and I'm just a normal citizen). If they are suppressing that information, they are doing a bad job of it.

NASA supports (perhaps not financially) Chandra Wickramasinghe's research into Panspermia and the possibility that phenomona such as the Red Rain have and still are seeding our planet with life. There may have been a time that NASA (and others) did not support the Panspermia idea, but Dr. Wickramasinghe has found enough evidence supporting his hypothesis that most people (including NASA) feel it is something that is at least worth pursuing.

NASA has researchers who believe that life perhaps came to Earth via comets, and NASA is actively funding projects to test that hypothesis of "Panspermia". They spent millions of dollars to send a probe to collect comet dust looking for the building blocks of life in that dust. This, to me, indicates a support in further pursuing the Panspermia hypothesis.

I don't understand what you say they are "suppressing" that sort of information. On the contrary, NASA is rather at the cutting edge of looking for life elsewhere. They are among the leaders on that specific scientific community.


[edit on 11/26/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


not sure if they are in on the conspiracy or not (if there is one) but don't you agree that the picture looks fake ? and what could that mean ?


yea i'm not sure either how they might possibly detect life on the Moon , maybe it depends on what kind of life it is ? so do you agree with Michiu Kaku's opinion or do you not have an opinion on that ? just wondering

[edit on 26-11-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

not sure if they are in on the conspiracy or not (if there is one) but don't you agree that the picture looks fake ? and what could that mean ?

I can't tell for sure whether it's real or fake just by looking at it, but perhaps the reason it may look fake is because we don't have a point-of-reference against which to gauge it...

...i.e., we never before saw a high definition movie of an Earth-rise over the Moon, therefore we have nothing against which to compare it. We can't say "it doesn't look like the 'other' high-definition movies of an Earth-rise"

[edit on 11/26/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by easynow

 

Yes I heard Michiu Kaku's speculation on that before, it's interesting.

speculation?

com'on... he is clearly talking about the protocols there.....

and talking of signals..... check the following.....

et confirmation ex nsa via foia?

documents.theblackvault.com...

documents.theblackvault.com...

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
I can't tell for sure whether it's real or fake just by looking at it, but perhaps the reason it may look fake is because we don't have a point-of-reference against which to gauge it...

...i.e., we never before saw a high definition movie of an Earth-rise over the Moon, therefore we have nothing against which to compare it. We can't say "it doesn't look like the 'other' high-definition movies of an Earth-rise"

how about other comparisons?

Originally posted by mcrom901
in regards to the above video..... here are some more details.....

these quotes are from....

Apollo 11 Technical Air-to-Ground Voice Transcription, July 1969, 626 pages

furthermore....

and these are from....

Apollo 11 Onboard Voice Transcription-Command Module, August 1969, 248 pages

and finally.....

www.llnl.gov...

kinda obvious......... imho......

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by LunaCognita

 

The people that say NASA is hiding information don't seem to realize that most of the speculation on life in our solar system comes from NASA scientists.

And the people that say NASA is not hiding anything seem to fail to appreciate that NASA have for decades had a monopoly on the evidence we the general public, have been allowed to analyze! Do you realize how much easier it is to keep incredible secrets like this when the public has had to rely on a singular official source for the vast bulk of the "evidence" about that subject?

There is no way for anybody to independently confirm or verify so much of what NASA has been telling us and showing us! If they say that they are giving us all the information they have, how the hell do we know they are? We have no way of knowing if NASA are being honest and entirely forthright - in fact, I will say that we know the opposite to be the case! What we do know for certain is that NASA was and is legally obligated to NOT tell the public things that could threaten national or global stability, and you better believe that revealing any evidence of extra-terrestrial life on the Moon or anywhere else falls into that category!

This is where the whole idea of "perceived credibility" comes into play, because anytime a singular source has to be relied on for all the information pertaining to a topic, that source - NASA in this case - must build the perception of credibility in order to establish the required propaganda advantage. This is a vital component needed to help enforce and maintain the Dead Moon Dictum. In the 1960s and 1970s, NASA's perceived credibility came from claiming that the Apollo Program was a completely transparent scientific exploratory effort that was not going to hide any discoveries from the world, and they went to great lengths to make it appear that they were not hiding anything (you know, like hiding the existence of covert, "off the record" Standup-EVAs for example).

Many people in the public swallowed the Apollo cover-story hook, line and sinker because they desperately wanted to believe that NASA would not possibly lie to them or cover anything up and they had no choice but to swallow that! There was and is no way of independently verifying so much of what NASA has told us about the Moon, forcing us to have to blindly trust whatever we are told as being the full and uncensored truth. NASA (like any other "civilian" space agency on Earth) have never been transparent - NASA are an opaque adjunct of the Department of Defense, and are forced to filter and censor information before the public ever hears, sees, or reads it! There are people at NASA who definitely know far more than they are telling the public, because they are not allowed to tell the public!

So, when it comes to evidence from NASA, we must always remember that we are dealing with an agency that we know are required by law to cover up certain facts that could threaten global stability if made public. The Dead Moon Dictum was the very foundation of the entire Apollo coverstory, and it was built around the idea of protecting global stability by hiding all evidence of extra-terrestrial life up there. It is what the Greek philosopher Plato would call a "Noble Lie" - a lie that is designed to "maintain social harmony and the social position of the elite". Basically, the PTB justify lying to and misleading the public about the Moon because they believe our "global village" is not yet culturally mature enough to handle certain stunning facts without going off the deep end. NASA has absolutely NO legal obligation to tell you the truth about the Moon. They do have legal obligations to lie to us however! We should always remember that ugly fact!

Cheers,
LC

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
I don't understand what you say they are "suppressing" that sort of information. On the contrary, NASA is rather at the cutting edge of looking for life elsewhere. They are among the leaders on that specific scientific community.

what are they saying about that specific incident?

looool....... lets not mix up things.....

Originally posted by easynow
so do you agree with Michiu Kaku's opinion or do you not have an opinion on that ?

Yes I have an opinion, and while I don't agree with Michiu Kaku's "panic" statement, I have other reasons to think some types of ET discoveries might be kept secret based on some facts.

The facts are military secrets that have been declassified, and there's a long list, but the F117A is an example, is something that was kept secret because it had a technology believed to be superior to that of enemy forces. It's in the best interest of self preservation of a military force to maintain an advantage. Now look at the advantages of the F117, it was supposed to be nearly invisible to radar, but otherwise it's flight characteristics and payload capabilities were unremarkable, in fact I doubt they could fly it without computer control the aerodynamics were so bad. Now this had a slight advantage and it was kept secret, right?

What if a real flying disk crashed somewhere with alien propulsion technology that could be reverse engineered? The advantages of such a technology could dwarf the slight advantages of the F117A, for example if it could travel fast enough to outrun any manmade missile it wouldn't even need stealth, the missiles could never reach it. Now take the fact the F117A was once secret and use the same mindset involved in that security classification to decide what level of security classification to apply to advanced technology from an alien source. It seems to me that it would be an inescapable conclusion to expect the advanced alien technology would have even more reason to be kept secret than the F117A.

Now if we detect extremophile lifeforms on Mars or the moon, I don't think it would cause any kind of mass panic or unrest for people to learn there's essentially bacteria or its equivalent living on other planets in our solar system, and no military advantages to keeping that secret for reasons of national security. Furthermore, NASA seems stretched to get funding and a discovery of that nature would possibly allow them to get more funding so we can learn more about the alien life. So no national security concerns if you don't believe people will panic about alien bacteria and I think it's silly to think they would, and more funding...seems like there are no valid reasons why they wouldn't announce it.

With regard to the SETI question, Seth Shostak says there are no MIBs hovering over the SETI institute trying to classify any disclosures about ET radio signals, and I happen to believe him. But I do agree with Kaku to an extent if Seti finds something, we won't hear about it right away, it will be for different reasons, because Seti has found so many "false" signals from earth sources, the delay would be due to double-checking and triple-checking the results to rule out any earth sources before concluding it's really an alien signal. Now about these new protocols being drafted for the Allen array that Kaku refers to, I'm a little bit undecided on that, I really don't think it would cause mass panic to learn that we got radio signals from ET located many light years or more from earth. Could someone decide someday that such a discovery should be kept secret? I wouldn't rule it out, but if you believe Kaku's explanation of "draft protocols" then perhaps he's also alluding to the fact that since they are drafts, there's really no formal, approved secrecy protocol in place yet for SETI discoveries.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by mcrom901

That video from the Kaguya/Selene probe used a modern high-definition digital video camera with a telephoto lens. The Apollo missions did not.

Another example would be the pictures from Cassini. The pictures of Saturn from the Cassini probe taken this year look very different that the pictures of Saturn from Voyager almost 30 years ago. That's because the cameras were very different.


[edit on 11/26/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by mcrom901
kinda obvious......... imho......

Actually it's not so obvious, you post quotes from astronauts saying "it really looks gray" and use that to imply a gray picture is a fake? Think about it.

What they said is, it looks gray from one sun angle, and then brown or tan from another sun angle. Given that observation, why isn't it possible that the photo where it happens to look gray was taken from the sun angle that makes it look gray?

Maybe if they take another picture from another sun angle it will look brown or tan as the astronauts said but that doesn't mean the gray picture is a fake.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by mcrom901

 

That video from the Kaguya probe used a modern high-definition digital video camera with a telephoto lens. The Apollo missions did not.

and was that equipment also able to x-ray the core of the planet as well?

what has that got to do with alexander the great.... or the pope in this case....

I just want to add that what most people on the other (west) side of the Atlantic ocean think about NASA is not the same thing that most people from this (east) side think, we never considered their opinions as definite truths or anything close to it, I think that that kind of "NASA promotion" was a secondary effect of the cold war, in which NASA was presented as the best of the best ("sir, with honours" ) to compensate for the fact that they were not the first to put a satellite in orbit.

I have an old (maybe made in the 70s) that shows colour photos of the Moon. Unfortunately, I cannot find it right now, my sister moved the books and I cannot find it.