alien presence on moon???

[bearack]

Pardon my "HUH"? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[lsbd]

<font color="yellow">Then why did they photoshop it away from the rest of the three images from the same orbit? </font><br /><br />then why DIDN'T they photoshop it out of the 4th image?<br /><br />Are they really that careless/stupid? they can send a man to the moon but they can't photoshop out 4 of 4 images of an alien mothership?<br />

 

[aphh]

We don't know. <br /><br />That is what I'd like to know aswell. The anomaly is there in image 2159, this is undebatable. I see it, you see it. <br /><br />Anything else we don't know.

 

[brandbll]

I'm not sure i get what your saying in your reply. Was that directed to me? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[bearack]

I don't under stand the подводн-корабль 1 reference. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

* I don't under stand the подводн-корабль 1 reference.<br /><br />That is a supposed vehicle that supposedly the Soviets built during cold war. It is capable of both submerging and orbital drive...<br /><br />I doubt the propulsion was enough to collide with the moon, though. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />But seriously, from now on, let's try to locate more evidence of something that we don't know. Because obviously it is out there. The evidence of something, I mean.<br /><br />Let's try to have an open mind. I was instructed to that anomaly by a UFO nut. Is he nut for seeing something in that picture? Because I know that I am not a nut, and I still see it.

 

[lsbd]

<font color="yellow">I was instructed to that anomaly by a UFO nut.</font><br /><br />I think that just about sums it up <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[aphh]

* I think that just about sums it up<br /><br />Actually, it doesn't. <br /><br />Like I said, is he nut for seeing anomaly in that picture? Are you nut, if you see it? So do you see it or not? <br /><br />Like you said, sometimes a rock is a rock. I say, sometimes a UFO nut sees an anomaly in an image.

 

[lsbd]

you said it yourself, "he is a nut". he is going to see alien motherships in every image he looks at, or he is going to see where an alien mothership was photoshopped out of an image, etc. If he hands you a picture and says, look at this alien ship, you mind is going to be preconditioned to "look for an alien ship" and hence you will be much more likely to "see it" than if you are handed a picture and asked, "what do you see here?"<br /><br />Are there alien motherships out there? I don't know. maybe. I would like to think so.<br /><br />what I do know, is that the images linked here don't prove it.

 

[aphh]

* what I do know, is that the images linked here don't<br />* prove it. <br /><br />They don't prove against it either. Pre-conditioning works in mysterious ways.<br /><br />Sorry folks, <br /><br />but it's a 50% chance that anomaly in picture 2159 is something we should know more about. And this is not a claim, but conclusion backed by photographic evidence.<br /><br />Is / is there not anomaly in picture 2159 = yes<br />Should we know more about = yes<br /><br />That is 100%, if you put it like that. the 50% comes from the image handling and scanning methods. Either it's an imaging device artifact, or not.

 

[lsbd]

<font color="yellow">They don't prove against it either.</font><br /><br />ah, but in cases like this, the "burden of proof" does not lie with the "against it crowd".<br /><br />If this was an instant replay...the ruling on the field would stand. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[aphh]

* ah, but in cases like this, the "burden of proof" does not lie<br />* with the "against it crowd". <br /><br />There is no burden of proof, as I have not claimed anything. You either investigate further, or don't.<br /><br />If I was the investigator, I'd want to know more. But that is just me. <br /><br />All I did was that I provided you an anomaly to investigate further. But your pre-conditioning does not want to accept even that as existing anomaly.<br /><br />There is no debate. The anomaly is there in the image, this is not philosophical.<br /><br />Why is it there and what is it?

 

[lsbd]

when you have finite resources, you much be choosey on where you expend them. I have seen nothing in any of these images that is conclusive enough to warrant further study...but that's just me. <br /><br />as I said: the replay is inconclusive, the ruling on the field stands.

 

[aphh]

* I have seen nothing in any of these images that is<br />* conclusive enough to warrant further study...but that's just<br />* me. <br /><br />Well, there is a mile-wide anomaly in that image that has been obviously processed away from 3 other images.<br /><br />Call me a nut, but I'd investigate.

 

[lsbd]

<font color="yellow">Well, there is a mile-wide anomaly in that image that has been obviously processed away from 3 other images. <br /></font><br /><br />well, all I can say then is, you must be looking at different images than the ones I am seeing, or your computer has better graphics, or something..because I haven't seen ANYTHING "obvious" in any of them.

 

[aphh]

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/search/feature/?feature=Pirquet&sort=<br /><br />This anomaly is in the Pirquet region.

 

[aphh]

* because I haven't seen ANYTHING "obvious" in any of<br />* them.<br /><br />I happen to know someting about investigations, and picture 2159, aswell as the other images from the same orbit, would be called as 'lead' in a investigation.<br /><br />It would be very simple to find the persons who did the scanning/processing and ask more about it.

 

[lsbd]

I am a military police officer...so I too know just a little something about investigations. and this one is one of those we would write off as "insufficient evidence"

 

[aphh]

* thanks APHH<br />* and these images are of the same area as 9625?<br /><br />Unfortunately this is beyond my knowledge (I do not do this very much). <br /><br />But 9625 is from the Izsak region and 2159 is from the Pirquet region.<br /><br />For somebody who knows more about moon that should tell more.

 

[bearack]

I see what you saying. Could there have been space debrie that floats through the first image? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

* I am a military police officer...so I too know just a little<br />* something about investigations. and this one is one of<br />* those we would write off as "insufficient evidence"<br /><br />That's why I do not trust the officials anymore. They'd dismiss evidence even if you brought it for them to actually look at it.

 

[lsbd]

What I don't see is where it is "obvious" that something has been photoshopped OUT of the other 3 images

 

[aphh]

* I see what you saying. Could there have been space<br />* debrie that floats through the first image?<br /><br />It is a possibility. If there was a distinct shadow on the ground that the anomaly casted, I'd go to NASA.

 

[aphh]

* What I don't see is where it is "obvious" that something<br />* has been photoshopped OUT of the other 3 images<br /><br />I used the word 'obvious' loosely, I admit (english is not my 1st language). I see a patchwork done, but that's just me.<br /><br />I can't prove there is a patchwork done.

 

[brandbll]

Yes the подводн-корабль 1 was an experimental military spacecraft built by the Soviets in the late 60's. It was the largest spacecraft ever built and supposedly had a crew capacity of 80. It was suppose to be able to launch into space and then when it landed into water convert into a submerisble. Supposedly it worked, but on it's second launch there was some type of failure onboard подводн-корабль 1, all communication was lost and no one ever knew completely what happened. <br /><br />Of course, there are no public photographs of the подводн-корабль 1 that i know of. All we have are intel reports gathered decades later from relatives of the people who constructed the ship. There are no surviving members of the construction or design crew of the ship that we know of either. It's almost like a modern day Noah's Ark. But this picture seems to fit the few short descriptions of the ship that i have read about. This object in the picture is defintely more than some rock, this could in fact be one of the most important finds in modern day history. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>