alien presence on moon???

datalor · Dec 30, 2007

AW COME ON!!! *bangs head against monitor* Ow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

deapfreeze · Dec 30, 2007

" Unfortunately we will never know, unless somebody who was involved in the process tells more about it. " This is by far the best answer in the complete thread. To fully know what it is or could be we would need to speak with someone that was there or atleast worked on this... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> William ( deapfreeze ) Hooperhttp://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/ </div>

lsbd · Dec 30, 2007

***Ad Hominem Deleted*** We give up, you are absolutely correct. it IS an alien mothership and all of us here at SDC are professional debunkers, on the govt payroll. Our job is to keep truth seekers such as yourself in the dark. happy now??? <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

aphh · Dec 30, 2007

For people like myself truth is not a political decision, but a measurable fact in the space-time continuum. We could decide, that the anomaly in image 2159 is a speck on the lens and the red dot on the map just a red dot. But it would be a decision, not fact. In case you hadn't noticed, there is a info war raging out there, and it is to create more confusion, not less.

lsbd · Dec 30, 2007

***Ad Hominem Deleted***

a_lost_packet_ · Dec 30, 2007

APHH - In case you hadn't noticed, there is a info war raging out there, and it is to create more confusion, not less. There is no "info war." There are a lot of people who don't understand what constitutes "evidence" running around and demanding that people redefine critical reasoning skills in order to accept their new definitions. The only people that are confused are those that do not exercise critical reasoning skills and do not hold to a credible definition of "evidence." A "red dot" or a "speck" is not evidence of an alien presence on the moon no matter what definition of evidence you hold to. Insisting that it does falls outside of the realm of critical thinking. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

aphh · Dec 30, 2007

* A "red dot" or a "speck" is not evidence of an alien * presence on the moon no matter what definition of * evidence you hold to. Insisting that it does falls outside of * the realm of critical thinking. I never claimed that the anomaly or the red dot were the evidence of the mothership. It is wrong to even claim something like that. I only brought those possibilities up seeing how simple yet clear evidence of SOMETHING was to be dismissed off-hand. Truth is, the anomaly and the red dot could be just as well indicative of "mothership" as it could be not. We don't know. We can only speculate, but the evidence is real. There is info war alright, and part of it originates from the "official" sources. It is to create confusion, so that real matters might go undetected or unquestioned. The "info war budget" has ballooned during Bush's administration. Your government uses billions to advertise it's policies (Iraqi kids with flowers, anybody?).

lsbd · Dec 30, 2007

***Ad Hominem Deleted***

telfrow · Dec 30, 2007

APHH: FYI... UPG17 Other than correcting grammatical errors, thou shalt not edit other posts without leaving the Edited by [userid] (mm/dd/yy hh:mm PM) tag at the end of the post. IOW, do NOT uncheck the "Mark as Edited?" box. Any edit that results in a significant change of content or meaning must also include a line of explanation of what the edit entailed. Exceptions are minor edits such as grammatical errors or other edits which do not effect the message being conveyed. All major edits must be indicated by the edited by tag. Edit your posts with care. Changing content is a slippery path that can be seen as revisionism. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

aphh · Dec 30, 2007

I don't see that as very relevant, as I have not altered the content that I have already submitted. I might have added further info or description later, but not removed or changed the original. Thanks for the heads up anyway. Edit: are there rules for content, that do not further the discussion at all (i. e. nothing but "woo-woo" in several replies)?

telfrow · Dec 30, 2007

See my previous post. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

lsbd · Dec 30, 2007

Edit: are there rules for content, that do not further the discussion at all (i. e. nothing but "woo-woo" in several replies)? No. and "woo-woo" most succiently and adequately expresses my sentiment regarding the post to which I replied.

a_lost_packet_ · Dec 30, 2007

APHH - I only brought those possibilities up seeing how simple yet clear evidence of SOMETHING was to be dismissed off-hand. Truth is, the anomaly and the red dot could be just as well indicative of "mothership" as it could be not. If it was dismissed off-hand, was the reason for its dismissal credible enough for that action? Every "anomaly" doesn't have to be a true anomaly. However, just because its an anomaly that doesn't mean it is open to every interpretation and neither are all such interpretations valid. We don't know. We can only speculate, but the evidence is real. No. If you have real evidence then there is no need for speculation. There is info war alright, and part of it originates from the "official" sources. It is to create confusion, so that real matters might go undetected or unquestioned. The "info war budget" has ballooned during Bush's administration. What "real matters" are you discussing - An alien base on the Moon or the Iraq war? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

aphh · Dec 30, 2007

* No. If you have real evidence then there is no need for * speculation. The evidence is real, just not enough to "connect the dots" (=make the right conclusion that could be called a fact). Real issues? I'd say there are numerous real issues that the powers that be rather wanted to sweep under the rug. One that immediately comes to mind is the inflation. As always, not everything is really simple, but there may be complex underlaying mechanisms affecting it. Hence when I come up with evidence of something, I do not immediately choose the path with least effort. I try to get the big picture. If the solution turns out to be the simplest one, I am not disappointed. That an individual doesn't understand something doesn't mean it couldn't exist. Without a microscope we would not know anything about the micromechanisms, that indeed exist. If a "truth-seeker" suggested to you, that there are tiny organisms, that you really can't see, but they still exist, you might well write it off as vivid imagination. Without better knowledge, ofcourse. Edit: typo

et_earth · Dec 30, 2007

APHH: Edit: are there rules for content, that do not further the discussion at all (i. e. nothing but "woo-woo" in several replies)? /i> Yea, one can be a wise cracker, its not against the law.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dragon04 · Dec 30, 2007

"Aliens based on the Moon" is by any definition a radical and extraordinary notion that is not supported by any public observation or documented proof. Any extraordinary retort as a result is entirely acceptable under the TOS on the Phenomena thread. Wild claims deserve wild response, IMO. You can't seriously expect that such outrageous, scientifically unsupported claims won't be met with disdain, right? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

Mee_n_Mac · Dec 30, 2007

I only brought those possibilities up seeing how simple yet clear evidence of SOMETHING was to be dismissed off-hand. Truth is, the anomaly and the red dot could be just as well indicative of "mothership" as it could be not. We don't know. We can only speculate, but the evidence is real. OK, mebbe I'm running on empty but can someone point out to me WTH the red dot and the "anomoly" (whose position I thought was indicated by the orange dot in this jpeg) have to do with each other ? I thought you (APHH) had concluded that the "anomoly" was probably a dust speck and the red dot was so far off from it's position as to have nothing to do with it. What "evidence" is there ? What is it evidence of ? Someone posted the aforementioned jpeg on the WWW (? APHH ?). Someone marked up the "map" with the crosses and dots (???). Seems to me that before "we" go off on a wild gooose chase to no good purpose "we" would ask that person(s) why they did what they did ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

et_earth · Dec 30, 2007

Dragon04: I do not believe aliens want the moon. There is nothing to be had on the moon. Earth baby, Earth. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

fear · Dec 30, 2007

In reply to:Truth is, the anomaly and the red dot could be just as well indicative of "mothership" as it could be not. I think it's more likely that it's nothing special, like dust. Although I can't really think of anyway to falsify either idea. These debates about fuzzy pictures drive me nuts. Everyone sees a different thing and all of them have at least a slim chance of being right. Here's another picture (6.12 Mb) that's purported to show a secret moon base. The back story involves Bob Lazar and John Lear (take that credibility! ). The problem again is that you can see anything you want, and I bet if I don't point out where the "moon base" is supposed to be no one would ever find it. If one has to debate over anomalous pictures, I'd rather debate over this one or this one; where you can actually see what doesn't belong and see it clearly too.In reply to:There is info war alright, and part of it originates from the "official" sources. Those things may exist but the problem is that there's almost never enough evidence to call someone on it and anyone can be accused of it. I guess LSBD could be a professional debunker, but then again maybe you're a disinformation agent trying to draw attention to silly things. The two aren't mutually exclusive either. Maybe he's a pro debunker and you're a disinfo agent and you've both been wasting huge amounts of federal money arguing on a message board <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Mee_n_Mac · Dec 30, 2007

[yellow] Maybe he's a pro debunker and you're a disinfo agent and you've both been wasting huge amounts of federal money arguing on a message board. [/yellow] Hey, change huge to miniscule and I think you're on to something ! On the other hand if you're correct about the term "huge" applying to both/either LSBD's and APHH's efforts, all I can say is .... where do I apply ?

EDIT : Odd, I can't get the normal color tags to work ..... where have I erred ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

aphh · Dec 30, 2007

* OK, mebbe I'm running on empty but can someone point * out to me WTH the red dot and the "anomoly" (whose * position I thought was indicated by the orange dot in this * jpeg) have to do with each other ? It's the only red dot on the huge map I have managed to locate so far. It just so happens to be on the same region and on the same orbit where the anomaly is in the picture 2159. It could be something, or it could be nothing. If it's nothing, then it's evidence of nothing. That is what would need to be find out next, if there was to be further study. So in that sense they are 'leads'. Please notice, that in this case the material is original NASA material. It is not blurry video taken by somebody and released on YouTube. I thought that fact atleast might have been of interest, but I guess it's not enough. It caught my interest, though, but it was not going to be a big deal, until I was provoked by the prevalent attitude here. Difficult to get a discussion, easy to get "woo-woo's", potentially turning a thread into spaghetti and perhaps one day preventing a good outing. I'm slightly disappointed about that.

aphh · Dec 30, 2007

* Maybe he's a pro debunker and you're a disinfo agent and * you've both been wasting huge amounts of federal money * arguing on a message board One can never be sure, but for me the desired reaction would have been "interesting, let's put it in this basket of unexplained anomaly for now and see if more comes up from the same region". No "woo-woo's", no dust or lens flare, because it's not obvious. It is something, an unexplained anomaly until it's explained. Like other unexplained anomalies. Edit: by the way, if we always apply Occam's Razor on everything, the sun would still circle the earth.

et_earth · Dec 30, 2007

APHH: This thread was posted by manpreet224 and he hasnâ€™t be back to add anything. The only thing he said was in the original post containing some rather dubious statements applying them as if they were quotes. He is probably sitting back watching this thread being bandied about and have a good old laugh. Edit: changed AAPH to APHH <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

aphh · Dec 30, 2007

Yes, I think it's enough for now, unless somebody has more evidence of the phenomena or something else related to Pirquet or AS-17.

Mee_n_Mac · Dec 30, 2007

It's the only red dot on the huge map I have managed to locate so far. It just so happens to be on the same region and on the same orbit where the anomaly is in the picture 2159. Was my interpretation of the jpeg you linked to incorrect ? I though the orange dot was where the "anomoly" was and the red dot .... well it wasn't really all that close to the orange dot. So is the red dot where the "anomoly" is supposed to be located ? If not then how far away is it ("anomoly" vs red dot) ? Do you know who posted the jpeg to the hosting site and who made the markings (dots, crosses, lines) ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

alien presence on moon???

datalor

Guest

deapfreeze

Guest

lsbd

Guest

aphh

Guest

lsbd

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

aphh

Guest

lsbd

Guest

telfrow

Guest

aphh

Guest

telfrow

Guest

lsbd

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

aphh

Guest

et_earth

Guest

dragon04

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

et_earth

Guest

fear

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

aphh

Guest

aphh

Guest

et_earth

Guest

aphh

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page