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.

 

NASA "Water find" - What it really is: Base by lake

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by IX-777
 

That video is not found on any NASA website. It is an admitted hoax.

I wanted to make this video not as a joke, but as a slap in the face to those who are all too ready to consume anything put on their plate. If a video shows something never before seen, and seems to fly in the face of accepted history, is it prudent to: a) instantly accept it as fact, or b) seek the facts surrounding the event with the understanding that your conclusion will be formed by your findings, regardless of preconception. Far too many people are answering a), and I find this trend disturbing. It's this "dumbing down" of our culture and those who profit from it that I find more reprehensible than a silly hoax theory.

www.youtube.com...




posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I will re-quote myself from the other thread focused directly on this and the other moon hoax videos:




NASA Top Secret video taken of the two Stagehands seen in the Fake Moon Bay with the Astronaut, was provided originally by a YouTube user called 'rudbrps' & loaded on YouTube June 15, 2007. 'rudbrps' now reveals himself to be 'Svector', and that he created the video as a social experiment in how people can be tricked. However unfortunately for 'Svector' this different TV camera angled NASA video merges perfectly in conversation and action with the direct NASA file video, to reveal a hoax of a hoax, the irony is strange, so who is playing a joke on whom, and who is 'Svector's handler. NASA did redacted editing & cleaning up of the text, to cover what they really said in the written records of the Astronauts conversations. Also in some video's NASA has later recorded different conversations, replacing what was originally spoken."


So if Svector/rudbrp used your posted original video, how come it is a different video taken from a different angle and with different quality (the quality seem more clear but a bit more underexposed and brighter but better resolution etc) - where did he get this "original video"? Can you show me the original video he used for this? The very same segment that is from the exact same angle etc.


[edit on 16-11-2009 by IX-777]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
The video has absolutely nothing to do with the thread subject. Why did you even post it here? The only reason I can think of is to deflect from the fact that in the higher quality versions of the original photo there is zero evidence of any "moon base" or anything else anomalous.

Instead of tring to muddy the water with unrelated hoax videos, why don't you just show us where the "moon base" is in the higher resolution pictures? If it's there, it shouldn't be to hard since you already know where to look.

Or just admit that you were 100% wrong, there is no "moon base" in the photo, and try harder next time?

[edit on 16-11-2009 by subject x]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I have now read both pages and looked at all the pics with my glasses on my glasses off head tilted left head tilted right then bugger me you turned the pics upside down which saved me attempting the head stand I was momentarily wishing I could perform in order to see the 'structures'.

I agree that most pics published are of a pathetic nature and if I were an American tax payer I would want a refund yes you have to wonder why after so many years they remain so poor, but after reading IX-777 replies to you and and your very evasive and poor attempts to give him and now me a reply of substance even after he posting us what seem to be far better pics than yours I have to say mate that I agree 100% with IX-777 and think your looking far too deeply at fuzzy pictures for far too long before subliminal boredom starts to creat something for you to see. As IX-777 says please show us and explain in his clearer pictures where the structures are that you see? Just repeating yourself about bad quality pics is something we can all see and yes agree with you on. Its what you see that we want to see, you see?

Nice to meet you both.

Zebadey.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
First there was the Sightings by villagers of UFO's in South America drying up an entire Lake, no geological study found any natural explanation for the Lake literally vanishing overnight.

Now NASA have said theyve found Water on the Moon left behind by Cometary Debris, forgive me if im wrong but isnt the fact that a crater being made by Cometary debris going to somehow create friction and heat. How does NASA explain the fact that the water wasnt vapourised away into space?
I dont believe for one minute a Comet comes smashing into the Moon at thousands of miles a hour, creates a fireball and suddenly theres huge reserves of water left over which wasnt vapourised away in the blast.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ROBL240
First there was the Sightings by villagers of UFO's in South America drying up an entire Lake, no geological study found any natural explanation for the Lake literally vanishing overnight.

Now NASA have said theyve found Water on the Moon left behind by Cometary Debris, forgive me if im wrong but isnt the fact that a crater being made by Cometary debris going to somehow create friction and heat. How does NASA explain the fact that the water wasnt vapourised away into space?
I dont believe for one minute a Comet comes smashing into the Moon at thousands of miles a hour, creates a fireball and suddenly theres huge reserves of water left over which wasnt vapourised away in the blast.


Well water was deposited on here by comets.. so it would seem logical that this would be the same way the moon got its water. And yes the majority of it would have been vapourised... but its pretty self explanatory how the water has remained there when they've found water in the deep craters that dont recieve much/any sunlight.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
We live in jolly photoshop days - even kids can make incredibly realistic photo manipulations now. It certainly is not that hard for NASA to airbrush out certain objects and structures from photos, which they do, and the evidence is seen in a lot of their material. And, as mentioned in my other moon hoax thread, former NASA employee have stated they DO airbrush out and manipulate the photos so the truth is not revealed.

Sometimes the guys doing the airbrushing job dont do the job good enough and evidence of the tampering is left behind such as in the image I showed. If they do this on purpose to try release some truth to the public or if its a real honest mistake that was overlooked I do not know. But it does happen.

-Maggador



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Water on Earth actually came from the burning of Hydrogen during Earth's early formation, this process creates the by-product which is Water. Its a myth that the majority of the Oceans on Earth is Cometary.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by IX-777
 


What a cop out.

I always had a suspicion that you were full of it, this thread and your latest moon hoax thread has been torn to shreds and you still won't admit to it.

Poor form from a supposed superior being.

I hope everyone sees you for the farce that you are.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
From your point of view, yet others will say the opposite, just as myself.

Everything is about perspectives and how you look at things.

Nothing is torn to shreds as far I am concerned, and I gladly admit mistakes if I do some and I have done that before.

But here I do not feel I have done any mistake, and to me the evidence is clear, and the reason I feel this is evidence of artificial structures is simply due to the reason that I know what is up there already.

I admit that I may be wrong about the photo in question, but so far the evidence of it seem correct to me, and analysis done by others support that.

Here is one example:
www.enterprisemission.com...

What I see, is a clearer photo showing more details than any of the others presented so far. The only problem is that it is overexposed - which I assume is done on purpose, and the ruins / structures are blurred - which on its own should make some bells ring. Specially considering this consistently happens with NASA images - when something looking like structures are present, these tend to be blurred over, as I have proven with other images already.

You really believe that conveniently, on a photo of great scale, only parts that seem to have some sort of artificial structures would be blurred while the rest is fine and intact?

And I do gladly admit that the evidence on the Moon is not as profound or represented by the same amounts as those found on Mars, such as I have covered in my thread about the MARS CIVILIZATION EVIDENCE which have some rather revealing photos, in my own honest opinion.

-Maggador

[edit on 16-11-2009 by IX-777]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ROBL240
Water on Earth actually came from the burning of Hydrogen during Earth's early formation, this process creates the by-product which is Water. Its a myth that the majority of the Oceans on Earth is Cometary.


I didnt say the majority.. would have to be an awful lot of comets hitting us to deposit that much water, only saying that it has happened here so its entirely possible thats how the moon got its water.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Please check out Joseph P. Skipper's website on evidence he provides that nasa has been tampering with images from the Moon missions, and moon photos. He also has a Mars section. And it is VERY GOOD. He's as professional as it gets.

Here




top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join