Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What's your general theory?

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
YouTube is not a valid source of NASA images, even when it's from NASA's own channel, as images are not the same as videos..


Yes but I am seeing dozens of airbrushed photos, are they all faked?

I have no reason to disbelieve the man when he said that his coworker in mid 1965 said that they had discovered a base on the far side of the moon and showed him pictures of domes and towers, he said that he would stand up in front of congress which did not look like he was acting, and all of these airbrushed photos start being discovered and put on youtube. The face on mars and ancient alien depictions only add evidence, it is logical to see that research would lead to the same thing even from a skeptical point of view.

I happened to see the pictures early on youtube and like everybody is saying, it is white domes and skinny strange looking towers.

There is one pic I could find of a tower. The zoom in is at 1:04 in this video.



This pic is interesting, it could be an anomaly or it could be an actual rare us close view on the tower and domes.




NASA astronaut Edgar Mitchell claims alien contact cover-up
Dr Mitchell, 77, said during a radio interview that sources at the space agency who had had contact with aliens described the beings as 'little people who look strange to us.'

www.news.com.au...




posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by greyer
 


If they really wanted to do airbrush, they would do it in a way that no such blurry parts of the image would be seen. For example, what an average image editing would do is use the icon with the thumb and mix the colors in a way that they look part of the same. Military or whoever wants this secret would further enhance them in such a way that it looks like nothing has ever been changed. Leaving such huge blurry parts would not be done, IMO. Also this could have been failure of the image to load properly, or artifacts of the image.

Anyway, any images of the so called Dark Side of the moon?
edit on 1-1-2013 by ImpactoR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImpactoR
reply to post by greyer
 


If they really wanted to do airbrush, they would do it in a way that no such blurry parts of the image would be seen. For example, what an average image editing would do is use the icon with the thumb and mix the colors in a way that they look part of the same. Military or whoever wants this secret would further enhance them in such a way that it looks like nothing has ever been changed. Leaving such huge blurry parts would not be done, IMO. Also this could have been failure of the image to load properly, or artifacts of the image.

Anyway, any images of the so called Dark Side of the moon?
edit on 1-1-2013 by ImpactoR because: (no reason given)


You can think of different reason why they show you some of it.
One reason is that it's one of their rules, another is that they want to cover their a$$ if it the truth ever comes out.
A more even more disturbing reason would be if their really is (or was) an alien agenda as spoken of in the disclosure project to blaim UFO's for a war.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by greyer
Yes but I am seeing dozens of airbrushed photos, are they all faked?

Probably, I have been looking at photos from the Moon and Mars for years and I have never seen signs of airbrushing in any photo on a NASA server, although I have seen some images that were altered in some way.


I have no reason to disbelieve the man when he said that his coworker in mid 1965 said that they had discovered a base on the far side of the moon and showed him pictures of domes and towers, he said that he would stand up in front of congress which did not look like he was acting, and all of these airbrushed photos start being discovered and put on youtube.
I don't have any reason not to believe him, but do you believe that what the other man told him was true? As far as we know one may be convinced that what the other told him was true but it was not.
As for things being put in YouTube, once more, YouTube is not a source of NASA photos, if things appear in YouTube than they are (most likely) available on NASA servers as digital images of better resolution than (and without the strong compression associated with) the videos. Look at those photos, not at the videos.


The face on mars and ancient alien depictions only add evidence, it is logical to see that research would lead to the same thing even from a skeptical point of view.

The "face on Mars" is a geological feature, I haven't seen a thing that points to something else.
Ancient alien depictions are all (the ones I have seen) suspicious, because they are usually based on some assumption made by those that say that they depict aliens, ignoring all that is known about the people and customs of the time the depiction was made.


I happened to see the pictures early on youtube and like everybody is saying, it is white domes and skinny strange looking towers.
I have a photo of a huge, disk-shaped, cookie on a park in Almada (where I live), that doesn't mean a giant cookie landed in Almada.


There is one pic I could find of a tower. The zoom in is at 1:04 in this video.

That white thing near the fiducial mark?
Doesnt' exist in the official NASA images, it exists in Keith Laney's version and it looks like a small fibre on the photo, as you can see here.


This pic is interesting, it could be an anomaly or it could be an actual rare us close view on the tower and domes.


I think that's a Lunokhod photo. Lunokhod were USSR probes that landed on the Moon, took photos and got soil samples. The way they landed was a little "rough" (at most), so it was not unusual to see pieces of the probes scathered around it on the photos.
But, obviously, I cannot be sure about what that photo shows, only that it does not show large structures, as it was taken on the ground.

Edit: it's not a Lunokhod photo, it's from Luna 13, as you can see here, a better version of that photo.
edit on 1/1/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thanks for the picture that is very talented research, you are doing a good job convincing me that there are no alien bases on the moon. It makes me think of Bill Cooper, at first he said exactly what I have been mentioning and it seemed to fit so good together, but if it was all a lie for the purpose of us to believe in aliens. Several years later Bill Cooper was kind of outraged and claimed no, there is no such thing as aliens or a moon base, and the government mutilated all the cattle with secret black helicopters. Both his information before and after his beliefs in aliens seemed reliable, and I don't know what was said to him that made his change is sort of an angry way, declaring to us all that it is all a lie. I don't see how they can half secret glowing craft and such sophisticated technology to make us believe when the people who have witnessed cattle mutilations saw alien beings. I don't see the mind control program can result somebody with an alien abduction imprinted in their subconscious brought on by a military hypnotist and how a military intelligence agent can come out with information that is so in depth, as if there was a study somewhere that actually knew the truth. In the end you can see all the lies but the lies don't confirm there are no aliens, I can see this 70-90% of lying, but the visitation still appears to stand.


December 22nd 2012
Cattle Mutilations Return to Santiago del Estero (Argentina)
inexplicata.blogspot.com...



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
...
As for things being put in YouTube, once more, YouTube is not a source of NASA photos, if things appear in YouTube than they are (most likely) available on NASA servers as digital images of better resolution than (and without the strong compression associated with) the videos. Look at those photos, not at the videos.
...

Youtube is a convenience. It's catchy. It grabs people's attention (online) and gets them interested. It's handy for those who don't want to read, but instead want to watch and listen. Think of the idiot tube (television).

But often there's not enough video of something anyway, regardless of whether it's YouTube or GoogleVideo or other. So it takes a lot more effort just to introduce an idea. It's just natural (though unfortunate) that readers would skip over long dry written text, but they'll click on a video and take a glance at the run duration at least.

Having said that, can you really trust NASA to disclose all their information?

That's the key question. It throws it back to government (or quasi-government) cover up. NASA has to filter and decide what to classify as confidential, secret, top secret, etc. if only for national defense. Or ostensibly that. They kick everything up the chain of command before making anything available to the public.

So yeah, those high resolution photos show nothing.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by FormerSkeptic
Having said that, can you really trust NASA to disclose all their information?

Not really.



That's the key question. It throws it back to government (or quasi-government) cover up. NASA has to filter and decide what to classify as confidential, secret, top secret, etc. if only for national defense. Or ostensibly that. They kick everything up the chain of command before making anything available to the public.

So yeah, those high resolution photos show nothing.

It's obvious that the photos only show what they want us to see, the problem get worse when third parties, for whatever reason, use bad or even fake versions to promote their ideas/agendas, making it even more difficult for those that follow the subject to understand how things are.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

I think that's a Lunokhod photo. Lunokhod were USSR probes that landed on the Moon, took photos and got soil samples.


Луноход - Moon walker.

Have they ever been to the unlit side of the Moon?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ImpactoR
 


I think all the USSR missions (landers and rovers) landed on the near side, as communications would be difficult if they landed on the far side (they would need at least one satellite orbiting the Moon to communicate with the rover/lander and Earth.

I will check.


Edited to add that in the image below, the small red flags near the east and west edges of the Moon are some of the USSR missions, so they never landed on the far side, only as close as they could be.

edit on 2/1/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Here's my opinion: our existence is both theoretically and statistically impossible. Therefore the likelihood of another race is irrelevant, as we have already beaten the odds, and rendered science redundant



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by FormerSkeptic

Youtube is a convenience. It's catchy. It grabs people's attention (online) and gets them interested. It's handy for those who don't want to read, but instead want to watch and listen. Think of the idiot tube (television).

But often there's not enough video of something anyway, regardless of whether it's YouTube or GoogleVideo or other. So it takes a lot more effort just to introduce an idea. It's just natural (though unfortunate) that readers would skip over long dry written text, but they'll click on a video and take a glance at the run duration at least.

Having said that, can you really trust NASA to disclose all their information?

That's the key question. It throws it back to government (or quasi-government) cover up. NASA has to filter and decide what to classify as confidential, secret, top secret, etc...


Btw, NASA is part of DOD. Wonder why it is not primarily a scientific institution.

Personally, I love YouTube because I love hearing things from the "horse's mouth". Not hear-say, no fake reporting, much less chance of taking out of context. And easier to absorb than having to read transcript. I do not consider myself an idiot for using it.

So can I ask you what method/approach you employed that brought you to those 5 conclusions that you started out with?



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
My thoughts so far:

1) Humans were genetically engineered to be slaves to the Annunaki.

2) There are definitely more than one species of ET

3) I believe the number '12' has more significance than '33' as believed by most "secret organizations" or occults. Based on the Majestic-12, Project Serpo, and several other instances

4) I believe their purpose in the reproductive experiments is to save/replenish their own race, I base this off of the "frail" bodies that are constantly described by contactees, and several accounts of their emotional status or lack thereof, also the theory that they are now unable to reproduce and have resorted to cloning themselves to sustain the race

5) There are probably ETs working along side government organizations at the moment

6) There are ETs keeping an eye on the events that occur on Earth. More specifically, they also keep an eye on certain individuals psychic progress

7) I think the Bible, and other religious texts, can be mostly explained by ETs, specifically Noah's Ark

8) Ancient civilizations took time to preserve their "legends" or "myths" in stone for a reason, not because they were legend or myth

9) The Ark of the Covenant was a communication device with an Annunaki that convinced the populace he was "God." The Ark of the Covenant has long since been silent as that Annunaki is probably deceased. If this wasn't so, the Church would still mandate many more regulations on the public

10) A creator exists, but is by no means what traditional religions believe to be God, etc. Not quite sure what I believe "the creator" to be myself, honestly, but something had to have created this Universe

11) Reincarnation is the answer to the afterlife, based off the fact that all living beings have a uniqueness we refer to as the "soul," I fail to understand how the human populace can believe those souls just waste away for the rest of eternity playing harps or playing around with 72 virgins... Furthermore Karma exists but not in a sense of good/evil/right/wrong. I think it is more of a learning experience throughout your various lifetimes and has a psychological impact in your new life (behaviors, affinities for certain types of jobs, etc), Edgar Cayce's studies/AREs past life profiles (based off of Cayce)

12) Psychic ability manifests in all humans, whether you choose to ignore it or not allows/hinders your abilities growth. In general, the human populace has stunted their pyschological/psychic growth, still unsure whether this was a conspiracy by the ETs/world government to keep us from reaching our maximum potential, but I have a strong feeling it was. The ETs have a firm grasp of their psychic capabilities and is one of the few ways they are still superior to the human race. I don't believe any individual (human or ET) has all psychic capabilities in one body though, can't be sure of this but I assume it would have too much of a psychological impact on any one being to possess every ability

13) Certain individuals have been picked by the ETs to be saved from an apocalyptic event to restart humanity if necessary. Still uncertain which side I think they would go for... Whether they would want to save the humans that allow their psychic abilities to manifest (aka becoming closer to the level of ETs) or if they would rather keep us hindered in our psychic growth (aka race of slaves easily overtaken whenever needed)

14) The government has slowly been releasing true information about ETs through Hollywood, mainly Steven Spielberg but I'm sure there are others as well, this is to slowly ready the populace for the truth, while for the moment keeping most of the populace in disbelief

15) No ET race as a whole has the human race's interest at heart, but I believe there are individual ETs that are sympathetic and willing to help us get to where we could defend ourselves

16) WWII was full of alien influence (although I think it's a stretch to say that Earth was an intergalactic battlefield between alien races), I base this off the fact that we still use the V2 rocket engine to power our space shuttles, with little or no upgrades

17) Most documentaries/books on the subject of ETs are part of the misinformation machine. If anything, these are only useful to know which cases to ignore

18) Tesla was onto something very real. His patents are very interesting to look through, especially the more recent patents that reference his (most are missing the original assignee, which leads me to believe there is some fishy stuff going on in the world at the moment). google.com/patents and search Nikola Tesla, you can see which patents are linked to his as well

19) I truly believe the statement "Anything that you can imagine, we can already do"

20) It's completely idiotic to believe that ETs are not capable of visiting us based off of distance from Earth, they are not hindered by OUR space exploration limitations

Out of space, feel free to ask my thoughts on subjects I didn't touch on.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
...
So can I ask you what method/approach you employed that brought you to those 5 conclusions that you started out with?

It's not any one piece of evidence, but here's one cornerstone event, conveniently upload to Youtube.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by FormerSkeptic

It's not any one piece of evidence, but here's one cornerstone event, conveniently upload to Youtube.


If I understand your response correctly, this is (for you) a piece of convincing evidence. I would basically agree that the sources, History Channel and the people they interviewed, sound credible, believable. But credibility is far from proof. Obama sounds credible and Bush sounded credible at the time also.

(I find it irocnic that you refer me to a YouTube after having referred to it as "idiot tube" earlier.)

After watching this, what can I possibly do? 1) Believe these people, or 2) not believe them. Do you see any other choice? As I pointed out, believing is passive. Let's say I believe them, should I then go on with life as if nothing had happened? Tell me how you or anybody can possibly do that!

My thinking kicks in and tells me that if their story is true then the government knows about it. Why are they not telling us? National Security is not a valid argument, it is meaningless unless you can show how national security would be negatively affected by such a disclosure more than 60 years later. Anything classified should have been declassified long ago.

My thinking also tells me that for the sake of National Security it would be positive rather then negative to declare openly that "the US has recovered an alien spacecraft and was able to reverse engineer its technology. The US is thereby able to annihilate the USSR or any other enemy in the event of an attack." (maybe the Cuba missile crisis would have never happened)

Why does the US government keep this secret from the American people it supposedly serves? If this is true what else are they keeping secret? Does the government not sound credible?

To believe this, you and I must also believe the implications that our thinking leads us to. If you belief this but not the implication then your beliefs contradict each other.

Either the most important information is kept secret, or, our government is there to protect us. We cannot have it both ways.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by FormerSkeptic

It's not any one piece of evidence, but here's one cornerstone event, conveniently upload to Youtube.


If I understand your response correctly, this is (for you) a piece of convincing evidence. I would basically agree that the sources, History Channel and the people they interviewed, sound credible, believable. But credibility is far from proof. Obama sounds credible and Bush sounded credible at the time also.

(I find it irocnic that you refer me to a YouTube after having referred to it as "idiot tube" earlier.)
...

There's a difference between an "event" and "evidence."

You seem to have misunderstood the context of "idiot tube" and, I'm sorry, but I think your belief system is rather random.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by McGooferson
My thoughts so far:

Out of space, feel free to ask my thoughts on subjects I didn't touch on.



Almost everything you say goes along the same thoughts as mine. Here are a few things I would add or be interested to discuss.

2) Just as one country on earth, the US, one alien civilization has gained superiority, or super-power status, allowing them access to the knowledge gained by inferior civilizations. The 1561 Nurnberg UFO sky battle reported in contemporary newspapers may have been between different species or different political groups of the same civilization.

4) With millions of years ahead of our civilization I do not see why they cannot genetically engineer their own DNA and need to rely on DNA they engineered in humans.

5) Most if not all governments are alien controlled. In fact they designed the concept of national governments to be able to control the population everywhere. England invaded many continents and sliced them into "nations" regardless of their native tribes so that the governments installed can use police forces to control the whole planet. Also, not coincidentally, England was "lucky" to invade the continents with sparse population (Australia and North America) to continue and improve on the concept of the British Empire.

7) Agree

10) But where did the "Creator" come from? I would ask the same question to people who do not believe in a creator, what caused the universe that existed prior to and caused the Big Bang? To contemplate this question seems unproductive for scientific, religious and all other practical purposes.

13) Aliens have brought us to our current level not because they want to hinder our evolution. This tells me that they are so much further advanced that they see no threat in our increased abilities.

15) They care about us as much as we care about horses, we feed them, we love them, we treat their injuries, we breed them to improve their qualities. But we also ride on them into battle to have superiority over foot soldiers and, for the government, are as dispensable as the soldiers.

16) Rocket science and quantum physics are two examples of how aliens have actively helped human technological discoveries in the 20th century. Moon landings, whether faked or real, could not have happened without alien assistance (a mathematical analysis or game theory would probably calculate the chance of it happening with hardly any hitch in the quintillions to one).



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by FormerSkeptic

There's a difference between an "event" and "evidence."

You seem to have misunderstood the context of "idiot tube" and, I'm sorry, but I think your belief system is rather random.


Where did I say there was no difference between an "event" and "evidence"? The context of your YouTube-quote is "Youtube is a convenience. It's catchy. It grabs people's attention (online) and gets them interested. It's handy for those who don't want to read, but instead want to watch and listen. Think of the idiot tube (television)." How did I get that wrong?

Please do tell what makes you say that my belief system is rather random. It seems rather random to attack my whole "system" in one sentence. Your threat is asking for a "General Theory". Do you only want to hear one that agrees with yours?



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
It took me a long time to come up with an opinion - I think its a really complicated debate to be honest.
If you're interested, look at my opinion here: www.manilaherald.com...



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
We are part of an ancestor simulation / reality game-show; one of the most popular in the multiverse.

There is no ancient past, or history. There is no "time" in this particular simulation before 1978.

Aliens? Narnia, please. The only aliens left in the 'verse are all in zoo's and none of them are particularly intelligent.

The year is actually closer to 27 billion+ (beyond the first known use of the microchip).

Many of us came here on purpose, to "win" cash and prizes.

A few of us are convicts, sentenced to this simulation for crimes against the multiverse.

The rest are NPC's, with fairly rudimentary AI.
edit on 7-1-2013 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen23
 


earth citizen23, you and I think alike. Time did not begin diring the theorized big bang, static time could be older than 998000000000000000quintillion years and much more. our planets lifespan could be a mere second in that. I look at the universe as a very small box in a massive wearhouse, in a massive complex, in a huge city, in a Texas size state, in a large country, on a big planet, in a huge solar system, in a large universe........but back on track here, intelligent design is a no brainer, multiple levels of outside influence is most likely, seriously, God could just be a mid level manager for all we know, we all are spoon fed what we beileve to a degree, and others completly. but do not lie to yourself, the limits of your belief are set by you, no one else. they are out there, never stop searching...





new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join