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.

 

Does NASA really know that there are artificial structures on the moon ?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I guess the simple and EASY part would be getting someone else to do the work for you, eh Jim?

Looks like this one will remain a mystery then. Troll on my friend, troll on.



edit on 17-7-2012 by freelance_zenarchist because: (no reason given)


Come on, you know if I did it and posted it, you'd claim it was faked data.

Sounds like you're afraid to find out.

You WANT to remain ignorant of the documented reality.

How does thart make you feel smarter than your science teacher?

I really can't figure out this evidence-avoidance syndrome. No facts please! We're UFOlogists. Or UFOriacs.

You WILL admit that Wolf claims to have seen moon pictures two years before the probe even GOT to the moon, won't you?

Explanation?

Wolf -- is -- confabulating -- fantasies.... [not so hard to say it, is it?]


.




posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


First of all Jim I'm curious why you lump me into the gullible believer crowd. Is it because I have an alien avatar, or simply because I disagreed with you?

I haven't stated that I believe Karl Wolf saw photographs of structures on the moon, and I also haven't come right out and prematurely called the man a liar. As far as I know Wolf hasn't done the rounds on Coast to Coast AM or any of the usual outlets, and all we have to go on is this one clip of him speaking at the Disclosure Project. So isn't it possible he misspoke and said the wrong date? Or are there other interviews of him where he says the 1965 instead of 1967? In my opinion, to throw him out and label him a liar based on one inconsistency is just as unhealthy as those who reject the proof right in front of them.

I am not afraid to find out, I simply don't have the cash to file FOIA requests, and I'm not an american citizen so I don't think I qualify. It was your idea, so how about you drop the playground bully act and do some actual research.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
reply to post by JimOberg
 


First of all Jim I'm curious why you lump me into the gullible believer crowd. Is it because I have an alien avatar, or simply because I disagreed with you?

I haven't stated that I believe Karl Wolf saw photographs of structures on the moon, and I also haven't come right out and prematurely called the man a liar. As far as I know Wolf hasn't done the rounds on Coast to Coast AM or any of the usual outlets, and all we have to go on is this one clip of him speaking at the Disclosure Project. So isn't it possible he misspoke and said the wrong date? Or are there other interviews of him where he says the 1965 instead of 1967? In my opinion, to throw him out and label him a liar based on one inconsistency is just as unhealthy as those who reject the proof right in front of them.

I am not afraid to find out, I simply don't have the cash to file FOIA requests, and I'm not an american citizen so I don't think I qualify. It was your idea, so how about you drop the playground bully act and do some actual research.


So what are the excuses for everybody else who saw the easily debunkable '1965' date and never even THOUGHT to check up on the simplest, well-documented aspects of the claim?

Is there ANY single person that we can identify who had the intellectual gumption to seek independent corroboration [or contradiction] of those portions of the verbal testimony that were subject to checking?

For US citizens, FOIA requests for military records are free. But they do require the service number or date of birth of the person under question.

My DOB is 1944 Nov 07 if anybody wants to check my military records.

Don't call me schoolyard names when the person you might be inclined to believe calls the entire US space program management and science teams a pack of liars and falsifiers. Your double standard is showing.

Find out the truth, if you want it -- and so far as I can tell, regarding this claim, nobody really wants it.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Where is Richie Hoagland when you need him?

He has a great(?) dissertation for the structures on the moon....



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
So what are the excuses for everybody else who saw the easily debunkable '1965' date and never even THOUGHT to check up on the simplest, well-documented aspects of the claim?

Is there ANY single person that we can identify who had the intellectual gumption to seek independent corroboration [or contradiction] of those portions of the verbal testimony that were subject to checking?

For US citizens, FOIA requests for military records are free. But they do require the service number or date of birth of the person under question.


Who cares what their excuses are, and you do realize that group of people includes you as well, right? You didn't (and still don't) have the intellectual gumption to search for his military records. Why are you so opposed to your own idea? Why do you want to belittle people for not doing something you yourself haven't done? Find out if he was a Sgt. in the air force in 1965 and post the docs up in the FOIA forum www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by JimOberg
My DOB is 1944 Nov 07 if anybody wants to check my military records.

Again, who the hell cares about your military records?


Originally posted by JimOberg
Don't call me schoolyard names when the person you might be inclined to believe calls the entire US space program management and science teams a pack of liars and falsifiers. Your double standard is showing.


Hey I can project to. I imagine you singing yourself to sleep at night with this song.




Originally posted by JimOberg
Find out the truth, if you want it -- and so far as I can tell, regarding this claim, nobody really wants it.

Including you



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I rest my case.

Seriously, two points:

1. If I came up with it, you'd be the first to claim I forged it.

2. Becoming a grownup means you don't need your daddy holding your hand while you go to the bathroom.

Face it -- you'd rather NOBODY ever checked this sort of thing.

It would make believing the stuff so much easier.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
1. If I came up with it, you'd be the first to claim I forged it.


What are you basing this on? You don't know me at all.

You have serious social problems Jim. You need to tone down the vitriol in your posts and stop assuming everyone is a mouth breathing, brains spilling out of their heads, die-hard believer.



Originally posted by JimOberg
Face it -- you'd rather NOBODY ever checked this sort of thing.
It would make believing the stuff so much easier.


I guess that's why I said it was a good idea, gave you a thumbs up and am still here trying to encourage your lazy ass to get up and do the research that you suggested someone else do.

I can see now that's never going to happen and you'd rather post nonsense on the forum than get to the bottom of this. Just as how some people won't question the discrepancy in dates and blindly accept Wolfe's word that there are buildings on the moon, you won't even check to see if he has a military record and automatically jump to HE'S A LIAR! That behavior is just as bad as the believers and is not healthy skepticism.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arrow22
Where is Richie Hoagland when you need him?

He has a great(?) dissertation for the structures on the moon....



You mean LIES about structures on the Moon



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   
The Karl Wolf story has too many other possibilities which are perfectly mundane. Could have been co-workers playing a joke for example. Real or not, the results are inconclusive, and the story is a classic case of 'no other credible witnesses'. Not that this means lies exactly ... Ted Bundy may have had no living witnesses, but Ted Bundy also clearly exists as do other serial killers for comparison (just an example). Currently there are no 'moon bases'.

I had a look at the other videos, too. The one with the photo edits ... I think it's the worst possible way to present a case. Each photo should have a write up explaining things like:

1. Where the image comes from
2. The processes and applications used on the photographs
3. The reasons for suspecting a 'cover-up'
4. Information ruling out other possible mundane factors

There is simply no points scored for anyone looking at a youtube video with spooky music and amateur video and photo editing. I'll take an overly long technical case file over youtube any day of the week.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   
The question of the thread is stupid by nature. Of course NASA (if there were really any structures) would know about them, they know the Moon well enough,

The problem is. there are no artificial structures



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Imtor
The question of the thread is stupid by nature. Of course NASA (if there were really any structures) would know about them, they know the Moon well enough,

The problem is. there are no artificial structures


Of course NASA knows what is on the moon. They have all the technology available to make positive evaluations of exactly what is on the surface. They know more than you think but I doubt that there will be any disclosure from them.

You have said that "...there are no artificial structures". Where do you get that idea from?



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by Imtor
The question of the thread is stupid by nature. Of course NASA (if there were really any structures) would know about them, they know the Moon well enough,

The problem is. there are no artificial structures


Of course NASA knows what is on the moon. They have all the technology available to make positive evaluations of exactly what is on the surface. They know more than you think but I doubt that there will be any disclosure from them.

You have said that "...there are no artificial structures". Where do you get that idea from?


From the probes sent to the moon by the European Space Agency, by Japan, by China, and by India, among other sources.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


I just don't believe there are any objects on the Moon. Especially since most of the alleged structures turned out to be craters under angle which together with the angle at which the shadow falls towards the surface may sometimes look like obelisks or spires, when it's just craters or rocks. Mars has some more interesting objects such as the face and some others, there was even a picture of some pyramids or something like that, I cannot verify such pictures of pyramids are real. But Mars has more interestin objects.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by thetiler
Yes and the same with mars too!
Thanks for sharing the videos! Very important videos for those seeking the truth. Whether your posts get one or tons of flags, still a very important thread. That even if repeated should be repeated for truths sake.


So let me get this straight...


I'm supposed to consider anything coming from the scientists and engineers at NASA lies and disinformation while accepting any unqualified assertions made by David Wilcock as the "truth"?



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

Who cares what their excuses are, and you do realize that group of people includes you as well, right? You didn't (and still don't) have the intellectual gumption to search for his military records. Why are you so opposed to your own idea? Why do you want to belittle people for not doing something you yourself haven't done? Find out if he was a Sgt. in the air force in 1965 and post the docs up in the FOIA forum



Actually, I tracked Wolfe down and asked him directly. It cost nothing and non-US citizens aren't prevented from doing it. But you never bothered.

He indicates he may have been wrong about the year his account took place in.

Why wasn't anybody else interested in doing this sooner?



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mckeesport


I have always questioned that NASA put 70 tons of aluminum on the moon with pretty stunning accuracy with pocket calculator computing power.


Sliderule actually, and it really wasn't that accurate. Newtonian physics is easy... having a computer display all sorts of things on a screen and run a gazillion other functions is what takes power.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 





posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Imtor
reply to post by arianna
 


I just don't believe there are any objects on the Moon. Especially since most of the alleged structures turned out to be craters under angle which together with the angle at which the shadow falls towards the surface may sometimes look like obelisks or spires, when it's just craters or rocks. Mars has some more interesting objects such as the face and some others, there was even a picture of some pyramids or something like that, I cannot verify such pictures of pyramids are real. But Mars has more interestin objects.



It surprises me when people make posts stating that there are no structures on the moon. This is typical delusional thinking. In fact, there are thousands, if not millions, of structures on the lunar surface and if people would do some research they would be pleasantly surprised at what there is to be found.

Here is a couple of views from a large image showing a definite structure on a crater rim.

To the sceptics, do you still say there are no structures on the moon?

The number of the main image is AS17-150-23087








posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


If you are in the know you would realize that Hubble was not designed for looking at the moon.



BUT it has and I was showing what it could resolve at that distance to point out NO backyard astronomer would be able to see what is claimed!



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Here we go more zoomed in NO detail BS pictures



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join