alien presence on moon???

Page 13 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

aphh

Guest
However, in the process I learned quite a bit of the backside of our moon, which was interesting in itself.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
<i>I've said time after time that the next step would be to see if there is a correlation between the imaged anomalies and the dots on the map. There is no way we could determine that here for certain.</i><br /><br />You are “hitching the cart before the horse†still. You cannot determine a terrain feature is “anomalous†merely by stating so, and then move right along as if you’re “proven†it’s an anomaly.<br /><br />I highlight where I found this, and other, similar, issues:<br /><br /><b>12/30/07 04:19 PM</b><br /><br /><font color="orange">The evidence is real, just not enough to "connect the dots" (=make the right conclusion that could be called a fact).</font><br /><br />What “evidence†is that? I would have to say that you haven’t proven there *is* “evidence.†Only a minor curiousity in a sea of other, equally minor, curiousities.<br /><br /><font color="orange">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.</font><br /><br />Now this takes a non-proven “anomaly†and goes right to “there is some sort of conspiracy going on that people in power do not wish us to know about.†This is a very dismaying comment on your part. We are quite antithetical to people claiming vast dire conspiracies here.<br /><br /><font color="orange">That an individual doesn't understand something doesn't mean it couldn't exist. </font><br /><br />The obverse here is that neither does it mean that something not understood is somehow indicative of anything alien, spaceborne, or otherwise a mystery worth examining.<br /><br /><b>12/30/07 08:06 PM</b><br /><br /><font color="orange">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". </font><br /><br />Another example. You ha <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
* What “evidence†is that? I would have to say that you<br />* haven’t proven there *is* “evidence.†Only a minor<br />* curiousity in a sea of other, equally minor, curiousities.<br /><br />If there was to be further study, all of the findings would be used as evidence. Maybe I don't know about Photogammetry, but I know how an investigation goes.<br /><br />The purpose of the investigation is to find enough evidence, so that a factual conclusion could be reached without uncertainty. To avoid a political decision.<br /><br />I think I have provided a small example of a method for a investigation, that might be able to provide a factual conclusion, if proceeded.<br /><br />Whether the anomaly in image 2159 is on the scanner, or imaged on location. <br /><br />Edit: only after that conclusion has been reached, there is room for further speculation.
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"The purpose of the investigation is to find enough evidence, so that a factual conclusion could be reached without uncertainty. To avoid a political decision. <br /><br />"I think I have provided a small example of a method for a investigation, that might be able to provide a factual conclusion, if proceeded."</font><br /><br />Who do you expect to perform this investigation?<br /><br />I would suggest that you do it yourself and then get back to us when you're finished.<br /><br />Take your time <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
* Who do you expect to perform this investigation?<br /><br />Nobody. <br /><br />It was just an example, that anyone of you could use when encountering anomalies; search for clues or other references, then make the decision whether to proceed or not.<br /><br />Edit: here is the anomaly, that according to many here is not an anomaly at all. The correct light angle and blending in the photo suggest otherwise, however: http://www.zweg.com/dump/photo/struktuuri.jpg
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Well, in actuality, you <i>haven't</i> provided a small example of a good method for an investigation. That was the main thrust of my commentary to you.<br /><br />For example: if one decides, for whatever reason, that there is something they wish to investigate, they must be rigorous and detailed, and examine whatever it is - an effect, an observation, an event - step by painstaking step, along the way trying all possibilities on for size, before discounting them and moving on to the next; and the next; and the next, ad-infinitum.<br /><br />Science is a slow, grinding process, not a series of pogo-stick leaps between disconnected points. It's mostly quite dull, really.<br /><br />It is also very important to spend quality time discovering what is and what is not relevant. All too many scientists have tripped themselves up, because they've allowed extraneous events, effects, or notions to invade their investigation. This was my secondary point to you. You've allowed far too many extraneous issues to merge into the whole, rather than focusing on one point first, and grinding through it.<br /><br />Finally - and I mean quite seriously - you may find that in the real world that grandiose conspiracies do not actually take place. As you yourself noted, the simpler explanation is usually the correct solution. Grand conspiracies are convoluted, involve far too many people, and equally far too many events to be denied or covered up. They are largely unworkable.<br /><br />These are the reasons I said that you are haring off down the wrong road.<br /><br />I have frequently heard of very similar "anomalous" things involving the moon, imagery, and conspiracies with the requisite coverups. They all do not pan out. In fact, this very OP and subsequent statements in this thread are <i>very</i> familiar to me. I can't quite place where, but this is a known and oft-debunked issue.<br /><br />Anyone else recollect this issue, and where they read of it?<br /><br />[Edited to correct foo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
* Science is a slow, grinding process, not a series of<br />* pogo-stick leaps between disconnected points. It's mostly<br />* quite dull, really.<br /><br />Investigation is not always about science, but connecting the dots. Sometimes something that seems irrelevant at first happens to be a relevant part when binding the dots together.<br /><br />You have to ask whether a piece fits in the puzzle. If it doesn't, before throwing the piece away, you have to ask whether some other piece might make it fit or not.
 
T

telfrow

Guest
Out of curiosity, I Googled “moon red tick mark,†which produced a “hit,†which led me to a series of other searches using additional keywords - and the discovery that there’s been a substantial amount of “research†and discussion concerning these same photos, the existence and location of the ‘tick marks’ and their relationship to “objects†in the area on at least two other message boards. <br /><br />Two threads by <font color="yellow">Bill H.</font>can be found at <b>UFO Evidence</b>: Mining Operations in the Moon and How to download the picture of crashed space ship on the Moon and proof that it's real. <br /><br />The first thread discusses what objects were seen in the frames discussed in this thread, and second <b>UFO Evidence</b> thread (“How to Download…) contains the posting: <font color="yellow">â€Theres [sic] a <b>brown tick mark at the location of the crashed space ship and a red tick mark at the location of the Helium 3 mining ops</b>.â€</font>(<i>emphasis added</i>) Both these threads were posted in June, 2007.<br /><br />A second discussion of this topic can be found at <b>Above Top Secret</b> in the threads Alleged Spacecraft/Objects on the Moon; Crashed UFO on the Moon Billions of Years Old; New Evidence from CDR Rutledge Backs Alien Ship Story!; Could 2012 be the Year Aliens Start War With Earth?; and Another Apollo 20 Alien Spaces <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
* you may find that in the real world that grandiose<br />* conspiracies do not actually take place.<br /><br />Like I said, without a microscope we would not know about things that happen beyond our natural capabilities.<br /><br />For a conspiracy to work the essential things are A) not speak about it B) not leave a document trail.<br /><br />Do you not believe that a hundred or a thousand people could not do that? Because they could.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
<i>Investigation is not always about science</i><br /><br />That is a specious comment, as in this case, this in fact very much <i>is</i> about science.<br /><br /><i>...connecting the dots. Sometimes something that seems irrelevant at first happens to be a relevant part when binding the dots together.</i><br /><br />Again, in this case, it's a matter of what you are attempting to do. Inasmuch as this is, at heart, to "prove" the existence of some anomaly based on the moon, there is no other scientifically acceptable method except to take each aspect of it and work through it in great detail.<br /><br /><i>You have to ask whether a piece fits in the puzzle. If it doesn't, before throwing the piece away, you have to ask whether some other piece might make it fit or not.</i><br /><br />The problem with this, as I have already commented on, is that you have not bothered to really ask if each piece fits or does not fit the puzzle. You have merely decided that a few individual pieces do in fact fit, without painstakingly determining if this is actually so, and discarded the remainder without a second thought. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
<i>Do you not believe that a hundred or a thousand people could not do that? Because they could.</i><br /><br />Oh dear, that <i>is</i> a problem. Because you see, a conspiracy of the nature you have alluded to would of necessity require not 100 or even 1000 people - it would require tens of thousands or more.<br /><br />We <i>are</i>, after all, talking about NASA, not some cabal that meets in a darkened basement at midnight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
I was aware of some of that, however, they seemed to want to believe that they found something extraordinary.<br /><br />I do not want to believe, hence I brought this up here, where I thought a more rational discussion might occur.
 
A

aphh

Guest
* Oh dear, that is a problem. Because you see, a conspiracy<br />* of the nature you have alluded to would of necessity<br />* require not 100 or even 1000 people - it would require<br />* tens of thousands or more. <br /><br />And what conspiracy would that be? Above all, I'd like to know whether the anomaly was recorded on location or not.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
<i>And what conspiracy would that be?</i><br /><br />Why, the one you have alluded to several times.<br /><br /><i>Above all, I'd like to know whether the anomaly was recorded on location or not.</i><br /><br />Once again, directly to that this is an anomaly at all, without any true scientific step-by-step investigation.<br /><br />Try again, please. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
* Why, the one you have alluded to several times.<br /><br />Now you are making a false conclusion (on purpose), that I want to see this as a evidence of a conspiracy. That is simply not true.<br /><br />There are more storylines here than just one, but I am able to focus on the most important one, which is whether this is a real anomaly that we should care about.<br /><br />Anything else is speculation, but this is, after all, forum for phenomena...
 
A

aphh

Guest
* directly to that this is an anomaly<br /><br />It is an image anomaly in original NASA material. No need to argue about that.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
<i>Now you are making a false conclusion (on purpose), that I want to see this as a evidence of a conspiracy. That is simply not true. </i><br /><br />That is not at all what I'd said. <br /><br />You have repeatedly made allusions that there is a person, persons, or entire groups, who "know" of these "anomalies," and have withheld information and/or gone to great lengths to prevent us, the average people, from learning about it.<br /><br />So indeed, it is true.<br /><br /><i>but this is, after all, forum for phenomena...</i><br /><br />A small side-lecture for you: even in the Phenomena forum, you are not exempt from using science to prove claims and assertations.<br /><br />I trust you are not presuming to tell me how this message board works. I do, after all, work here, am a Moderator, and am one of the oldest members onboard. I am fully cognizant of how this place operates, thanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
T

telfrow

Guest
12/28/07<br />10:52 pm<br /><font color="yellow">It's indeed not in 2161, but upon closer inspection to me it seems like photoshopping happened.</font><br /><br />12-28-07<br />10:59 pm<br /><font color="yellow">No, I meant photoshopping occurred in image 2161, the anomaly was hidden?</font><br /><br />12-28-07<br />11:16 pm<br /><font color="yellow">Is there a massive dis-info campaign going on to hide something relevant? <br />Or are WE supposed to gradually find something and acclimate us to the thought of something larger over time?</font><br /><br />12-28-07<br />11:49 pm<br /><font color="yellow">Picture 2159 has an anomaly, other pictures from the same orbit show signs of patchwork done.</font><br /><br />Manipulating (photoshopping) images would imply a conspiracy. As would a massive "dis-info" campaign. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
Notice the question mark. The part about photoshopping is speculation.<br /><br />Massive dis-info campaign was a general remark, not directly implying this had something to do with a conspiracy. Many "official" news corporations have been caught recently for falsifying evidence. <br /><br />Not going to give examples, though.
 
T

telfrow

Guest
12-28-07<br />11:49 pm<br /><font color="yellow">Picture 2159 has an anomaly, other pictures from the same orbit show signs of patchwork done.</font><br /><br />That's not "speculation." That's a statement of fact. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
* You have repeatedly made allusions that there is a person,<br />* persons, or entire groups, who "know" of these<br />* "anomalies," and have withheld information and/or gone to<br />* great lengths to prevent us, the average people, from<br />* learning about it.<br /><br />Example of making an allusion? <br /><br />I think I spesifically said several times that the correlation, whether there is or not, between the dots and the imaged anomalies would need to be studied next, should there be need to study it.<br /><br />I really don't see the point for this ganging up on me.
 
A

aphh

Guest
* That's not "speculation." That's a statement of fact.<br /><br />Yes, you have found a line, that is missing the word 'might'. My apologies.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
I must go for a while, but a caveat before I do: this is not "ganging up on you." Previously in this thread, you have been debating this topic with more than two people at one time, and didn't consider it so then. <br /><br />Back later. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
* Previously in this thread, you have been debating this topic<br />* with more than two people at one time, and didn't consider<br />* it so then.<br /><br />Well, it just seems more like diversion. I don't need to prove anything really, because I am asking a question. <br />
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts