Mars the anomalies The moon too.

[zenonmars]

Hi Jon, good post.<br /><br />This thread seemed to me to be a fairly casual discussion of the 'ancient artifacts' issue, and I casually slipped in and out without making a concerted attempt to "hijack" this thread.<br /><br />What you seem to be demanding is a full paper defending the very broad field of potential off-earth artifacts. Would that much info be a slight to this thread's author? Tel? Weigh in here.<br /><br />Jon, you said, <font color="yellow">"I show problems with the Zond images, and you bring up Apollo 10 and 13."</font> Because you said I made deductions from <b>ONLY</b> a single Russian "dodgey" image. There is a plethora of neat Lunar annomalies to consider. Many of these are to be found in Hoagland's "Monuments" book, which I am presuming you never read.<br /><br />So I guess you wanna see a <b>WHOLE BUNCH</b> of NASA images, huh? Ever hear of Stan Johnston? Ready to "do this process"? Ready to "engage the point in question"?<br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Classes will begin shortly. Remember, you said <font color="yellow">"This isa defacto admission that you know you are wrong. But it is making the public admission of that false dependent on the behaviour of others, in particular NASA meeting an arbitary standard of data release."</font><br /><br />See, people have been executed for murder without an actual dead body. My "job here" is to provide a "preponderence of evidence" that creates "reasonable doubt" about the "official NASA party line". If I can provide MORE evidence than is needed to convict in a US court, then I have done my job for all of the nice, taxpaying US citizens who own and pay for NASA and all of the data it has collected over these decades. The burden of proof rests on me. The burden of action, however, then rests on every US citizen who will be able to DEMAND from NASA new and better data from our Moon in these upcoming manned moon missions.<br /><br />PS. I wonder if, in October, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

I took a look at the supposed "Apollo 20 Flyover" of the "alien ship" on the moon vid on youtube.<br /><br />All I can say is that doesn't look anything like previous moon mission films. The surface detail, well, quite frankly looks like a model. That's both for the "alien spaceship" and the moon surface in those segments. I'm a little questioning about the jerkiness of the camera as well. It seems somewhat artificial, like it was done "on purpose." Personally, I don't find this "evidence" of anything other than someone made a film that's supposed to be Apollo 20 overflying some alien looking object on the Moon.<br /><br />I'd also like to ask "What does an alien spaceship look like?" <br /><br />Of course, all of this is precluded by the question "How would we have launched the most powerful, controlled, reactive force known to man without anyone knowing about it?" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[zenonmars]

Yeah, Richard also declared these hoaxes months back. The question remains by who, and for what reasons. More later. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

ZenOnMars - When was the information, pictures and video of the supposed "Apollo 20" mission released? IOW, when was it first discovered and publicized? Do you happen to know the earliest references for it?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[zenonmars]

hey Lost,<br /><br />I first heard about this on May 8th of this year. <br /><br />Someone over at Enterprise posted the link.<br /><br />I guess you would have to ask You Tube when it was posted. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

If you can, ask around for me. I don't run in your circles, fortunately for me. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> But, it's information I'd like to know. See who can find the earliest reference to this <b>particular</b> take on an Apollo 20 mission. I believe it's possibly significant and works in with some ideas that I've come up with lately. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[telfrow]

The first YouTube posting I can find is dated May 4, 2007. <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_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">ZenOnMars - I guess you would have to ask You Tube when it was posted.</font><br /><br />The earliest record of the poster on youtube.com named "retiredafb" is <br /><br />Style: Commentary<br />Joined: April 01, 2007<br />Last Login: 4 days ago<br />Videos Watched: 168<br /><br />From: http://www.youtube.com/user/retiredafb<br /><br />That's the best I can do with youtube. BUT, there may have been something else circulating in the community you deal with. If so, I want to know about it. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[telfrow]

Ah, you beat me to it. Just found that one. <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" /> <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_lost_packet_]

I'm faster than the speed of dark... <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">See, people have been executed for murder without an actual dead body. My "job here" is to provide a "preponderence of evidence" that creates "reasonable doubt" about the "official NASA party line".</font><br /><br />Unfortunately, your "preponderance of evidence" is subjective in the fact that it requires arbitrary interpretation from a great distance.<br /><br />Your "case" is an extraordinary one. And one that requires extraordinary evidence. Interpretation is not evidence. No matter how compelling, it's nonetheless speculation that cannot be tested or be subjected to the rigors of science.<br /><br />Faces on Mars, or derelict alien bases on the Moon <b>might</b> be indications of engineering instead of Nature. MIGHT be.<br /><br />Unfortunately, manned space flight is an extraordinarily expensive venture. Neither Mars nor the Moon can be objects of such expenditure to divine the truth or misconception of any ET hypothesis.<br /><br />There has to be a return on the investment. We have to justify the trip. We have to justify to an apathetic and sometimes hostile Public that there's something to be gained by going to the Moon and Mars.<br /><br />"Anomalies" can wait. Proving that we can establish a continuous presence at a reasonable cost <b>must</b> come first.<br /><br />Imagine for a moment that we "sell" Lunar and Martian missions on the basis that we're going to confirm the existence of ET, and that it is our main reason for going.<br /><br />Imagine that we spend hundreds of billions of dollars and "come up empty". Manned space exploration would be DOOMED as a result. That, I don't feel we can afford.<br /><br />Long after you and I are dead, and Lunar and Martian colonies are established, such things can be investigated at greater leisure. <br /><br />It's my belief that the "mundane" will be proven out. But we have to get there and STAY there first. Speculation of the fantastic won't even GET us there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[pierround]

These two links are real, the rest after watching some of the videos?<br />What would be the motive for a 76 year old man to hoax, there's no money involved?<br /><br />http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9625 <br /><br />http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9630 <br /><br /><br />

 

[pierround]

This is cool,<br />http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070717.html<br /><br />Another reason to be vigilant.

 

[zenonmars]

Here is the REAL deal. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUA35XQxxw8 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dragon04]

What am I supposed to be seeing in both of those apparently unextraordinary images? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[billslugg]

In each image is a cigar shaped object that was the subject of a u-tube video claiming it was a space craft. The object is in picture 9625 about 55% of the way over to the right of the left hand edge. It is exactly half way up.<br /><br />In 9630 it is also 55% over from the left hand edge but is about 20% down from the top. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nimbus]

Giant cave entrances appear on Mars! <br />Mars is hollow too! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dragon04]

Ahhh. You man those things that look more like clouds than anything.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

ZoM<br /><br />Thanx for that; really well done, and great to hear the old song again!!<br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">ZenOnMars - What you seem to be demanding is a full paper defending <b>the very broad field of potential off-earth artifacts. </b>Would that much info be a slight to this thread's author? Tel? Weigh in here. </font>(Emphasis added)<br /><br />You know why that is a "very broad field?" Because anything that "potentially" looks like anything that remotely resembles something with straight lines, curved lines, roundish or even remotely shaped like anything people normally call "artificial" is a darn "artifact." A shadow is sighted in a picture and someone shouts "UFO!" Some half-baked nut draws some lines on a picture or makes an outrageous claim and small portion of "teh interwebz" sleuths go all misty eyed thinking they've seen the Holy Grail. Yet, when it's debunked, even by those who seem to have a following in this crowd, nobody remarks on how foolish they were in believing it. Instead, they get distracted by the next "big discovery." And it goes on, and on and on. The fact is that these people are too busy finding out the "next big discovery" that they don't even take the time to look at what they've already claimed as being true.<br /><br />Look at what you wrote and make sense of it: "the very broad field of potential off-earth artifacts." Dude. Seriously. It's a very broad field of different shaped rocks. It's smoke and mirrors played on a planetary scale.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Because you said I made deductions from ONLY a single Russian "dodgey" image. </font><br /><br />First of all, do you have any rebuttle to Jon's discussion of the ZOND images?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">There is a plethora of neat Lunar annomalies to consider. Many of these are to be found in Hoagland's "Monuments" book, which I am presuming you never read. </font><br /><br />Just exactly why would it be any different? Hoagland is not an expert on anything. He is just good enough at what he does to dupe a small segme <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">pierreround - <br />This is cool,<br />http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070717.html<br /><br />Another reason to be vigilant.</font><br /><br />EXACTLY!<br /><br />The eye can be mislead by a simple photograph. Yet, if we look at that photograph from another angle, we'll see that the two squares are, indeed, the same color. This reminds me of the "Face on Mars" crap. (Please, don't go into that in depth in this thread, start another for that.) That was cut from the same cloth as the above image. But, once better pictures came out, the veil was removed from the "illusion" and it was plain for all to see that there was nothing artificial there whatsoever. It's the same principle and one that everyone should keep in mind when making such assertions about a blurry photograph. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">ZenOnMars - Here is the REAL deal.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUA35XQxxw8</font>color=yellow><br /><br />Nice vid! LOL Thanks! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">ZenOnMars - Why do I bring this up? Sometimes simple observation is enough to see stuff. Even NASA did it. Look at Mars, and you will SEE the footprint of ocean shores, and riverbeds, and deep lakes, etc. </font><br /><br />Simple observation is enough to make an assumption that will only stand up under simple scrutiny. But, to be certain, given the entirety of knowledge we have at the time, of anything, more than just simple observation is necessary.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Good thing NASA realised this and chose the Pathfinder landing site so wisely. Near those gigantic "twin peaks". Which, on the few HiRes pics taken, look remarkably like ancient ripped-open pyramid archologies. </font><br /><br />"Look like." What is "look like?" Are they ancient ripped-open pyramid archologies? And, for that matter, what is a "pyramid archology?"<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Which, when they bumped into a crionid-looking fossil-shaped thing, they promptly disintegrated it. </font><br /><br />"Crionid-looking." What is crionid-looking? Was it a crionid or did it just look like one?<br /><br />There's a difference between "simple obsevation" and "scientific analysis." The two are not equitable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Personal note: I would have sent this in a PM but I thought it best to put it here.<br /><br />Zen, sometimes people misunderstand my willingness to attack a position as some indicator of personal animosity. I would like to take this chance to assure you it is not. So, while I may go "hell for leather" in attacking a position or arguing a point, it has no relationship at all with how I may view the poster presenting that point. IOW, it's not personal. I may vehemently disagree with your position, think RCH is a nut or a con-artist and a whole host of other things. But, that does not mean I do not enjoy discussing such subjects with you nor does it mean I do not appreciate your participation. Such threads as these are a proving ground. After they are over, we can both retire from the field and have a beer or something as we wait for the next one to come down the line.<br /><br />Just thought I'd put that out there in order to keep any misunderstandings from occurring. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[pierround]

The bottom line is there still is a mystery with Mars.<br />I'm wondering what's in the deep hole.<br />So when the picture of the day or one of the other sites post it we'll see.