Lately I have been reading and reading and reading, I have watched every documentary on aliens, crop circles, abductions, pyramids and the Face of Mars, that I could find. I have google news alert me anytime the words UFO, crop circle; Nasa etc are in the mainstream news.

I have thousands of ufo photos, movies, news clippings. I have read related material like the Brookings report etc. I have dived into sites concerning UFO's in the bible. I have heard lectures by Klass, Friedman, hoagland etc..

Do I believe in any of this stuff? Answer = some

Anyone trying to research these topics must admit, that in order to have any success you must become very proficient in swimming through mounds of crap. I suggest the breaststroke.


After all this, what intrigues me most is our moon. It is so close .Yes we have all heard claims of structures on the moon. And I actually believe they are there. Not because of pictures shown by Richard Hoagland or other sites.

http://www.mufor.org/moon2.htm
http://www.keithlaney.com then 3 moon structures

But due to the lack of info on the moon. NASA has been photographing and studying the moon prior to 1969. But considering the amount of time we have spent studying the moon there is almost a black hole of data. We know its there but we can't see it. It's been 35 years since Neal Armstrong supposedly walked on the moon. And yet we have so very few decent high-resolution photos, and amazingly no photos of stars from the moons perspective. Im sure in picking landing sites NASA relied on much higher resolution pictures than the public has ever seen.

In 1995 Nasa clearly stated claims the Hubble was incapable of photographing the moon. Claiming its brightness would destroy the lens and held onto this position.

Richard Hoagland called this a flat lie stating that Nasa aimed the Hubble at earth’s clouds to recalibrate every fours hours. And earth’s clouds are 4 times brighter than the moon.
Then after 5 years of BS. Nasa in 1999 released a photo of a crater captured by the Hubble at the moons high noon "when it's at it's brightest"

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-moon.html

But it seems other than this quick snapshot in 1999 Nasa has, not had time to take any more photos of moon. Why?
Is somebody lying? Again? And again?

If Russia and the USA can keep a secret, will Europe, China and Japan follow the same path of deception? As all are sending probes to the moon. Don’t know, but think not. Also our moon is a strange anomaly in itself, abnormal in it keeps a rotation perfectly to keep one side always facing us. That is a strange thing don’t be mistaken. The reasons for this are only hypothesized. Claiming the side of the moon facing us is in a gravity lock with earth. [url]
No other moons in the solar system do this to my knowledge.

So my hopes on clarifying the Exterestrial topic are in that big beatiful bright spot in our lives called the moon.

hmmmm ..After thought..... does NASA stand for Never Admit Seeing Anything ?

They obviously have a reason for not telling us about something if something is indeed there. It's probably a good reason if the world's two superpowers, archrivals as well, agreed to keep such a thing secret while they were both aiming hundred megaton nuclear weapons at each other.

If it's true, whatever it is, it's pretty important that it's kept secret. Japan, Europe, China, whoever, will undoubtedly follow suit. They can't keep the secret forever but they will keep it for as long as possible.

My guess? Something similar to an Arthur C. Clarke short story I read. Evidence is there that mankind was a pet project of a long forgotten alien race. That would be so awesome. Perhaps we're some kind of religious experiment, to see how far myths from the distant past can hold us back from potentially conquering both our masters and the universe itself.

Just a guess.

By the way, I was on a small airplane once with Stanton Friedman. I didn't say anything to him but it was definitely him. He's pretty short.

edit: only your first page works, and the pictures thereof can be of virtually anything

thank you Pollox

do check this site

http://www.keithlaney.com then 3 moon structures

I disagree that information of such magnitude should be suppressed. If a planet killing astroid is hitting earth in 2 days and nothing can be done to prevent it . i would still want to know.

Ive always thought the moon was strange, have any photos been taken of the far side of the moon??

Also, when will the probes reach the far side (when are they launched)

Excellent Links , in particular the one article about the entrance to the mastif, very strange

In 1995 Nasa clearly stated claims the Hubble was incapable of photographing the moon. Claiming its brightness would destroy the lens and held onto this position.

Can you produce this statement?

E-mail from Zoltan Levay at STSCI :

X-POP3-Rcpt: mufor@mail
Return-Path: levay@stsci.edu
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 10:51:14 -0500
From: levay@stsci.edu (Zoltan Levay)
To: mufor@keyworld.mt
Subject: Re: Hubble pictures
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII


> ...has Hubble taken any photos of the moon?

No, the moon is too bright (even the dark side) to observer with HST.

> If you know of any FTP sites...

Try the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Lab:
seds.lpl.arizona.edu in /pub/images/planets/moon.

If you have World Wide Web access, these images and many more are available via
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplantes/luna.html

Zolt


Most statements on hst and nasa sites have been removed.

I watched the video with that guy and a bunch of militia retired dudes spoke about what they witnessed about UFos, his name was something Green i think, anywayz, One of the guys said that there was a alien base on back of the moon.

BUSH to Charge NASA with Implementing Broad Space Vision to ...
Space Ref
... W. Bush will propose a sweeping new vision of US space leadership that
will call for use of the Moon for technology development and partnerships
between NASA ...
<http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=902>

Do we really need the Department of Defense on the moon ?

Bush working on area 52 ?

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/10/05/37771.html

Heres a picture i posted in the Astronomy forum, it is from a russian probe, could it be the russian photos mentioned in the article?
http://www.thewhyfiles.co.uk/images/moonstructure_1.jpg

The image is from www.thewhyfiles.co.uk

> ...has Hubble taken any photos of the moon?

No, the moon is too bright (even the dark side) to observe with HST.

Where is this statement taken from?


you can also listen to an archived show on art bells website
where nasa defends there to bright to photo bs.

Most statements on hst and nasa sites have been removed.

You also have to pay to listen to archived shows.

Weren't the pictures of the moon taken with Hubble done with earth glow rather than sun light?

fluid, some of that guy's ideas are pretty out there... I mean, that square crater isn't square, he keeps talking about arcologies and collapsed domes... that's a lot to get from a couple of photos. I'm glad that he gets a kick outta them, but I think he's seeing more than is really there.

Bigblue

It is my contention that the lack of close up photo's of every part of the moon is the biggest mystery. Nearly 50 years of probes landers and Astro-nots, dont add up to the few low resolution photo's available. We have all seen outdated spy sattellite photo's of earth which can nearly read the date on a coin from space. Yet the highest moon resolutions are incapable of spotting out lunar Landers ?

Ah, my apologies.

Most spy satellites operate within 800km of the Earth; the Moon is 350-400000km away, which makes for a similar problem of resolution, that is, a camera that can resolve a 1cm object on the Earth from a satellite (like your example of a coin) can only resolve objects of 4.4 to 5m wide on the Moon, which is larger than the Lunar Lander if I recall.

As for the Hubble, I don't have any explanation for that. I doubt that the Hubble lens would be damaged by light.

My point was that our technological abilities to photo earth are much better than our abilities to photo moon? Did Nasa build their cameras and equipment at a lower level than the satellites which orbit earth ? I think not...

In 1957 and 1958, the International Geophysical Year -- a worldwide project to explore the Earth and its surroundings -- prompted the United States and the Soviet Union to strike out toward the moon.


In 1959, the Soviet Union got the first close look, as the Luna 1 probe passed within 4,660 miles of the moon

Luna 2 was a bigger hit -- literally, as it impacted the lunar surface.

Luna 3, in the same year, flew past the moon, sending back the first pictures of the "dark side" -- the side that faces away from Earth.

in 1964, when the unmanned Ranger 7 spacecraft crashed into the lunar surface. Ranger 8 and 9 followed in 1965,

Soviet Luna 9 probe was a landmark, making a soft landing on the moon in 1966

U.S. Lunar Orbiter probes circled the moon in 1966. In 1966 and 1967, a total of 14 U.S and Soviet probes orbited and landed on the moon, in the first extraterrestrial rush hour.

Pioneer: Series of five lunar flights, only Pioneer 4 was successful, 1958-1959.
Ranger: Series of hardware and imaging flights to Moon.
Surveyor: Series of softlander flights to the Moon.
Lunar Orbiter: Series of imaging missions to Moon.
Clementine: A cooperative DOD/NASA lunar mapping mission. Clementine was launched on 25 January 1994

As well as Apollo moon trips, not to mention lunar prospector missions ?


http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/space/prospector/history/

Did probes of that time have CCD cameras, so that they could transmit photographs back by radio? It doesn't sound like any of the probes were recovered.

CCD was invented in 1969-70, but I don't know if there were any lower-tech alternatives.

I suppose film-based cameras could be considered a lower-tech
alternative. And there was such a thing as "live" television broadcasts
back then, I don't know how the TV cameras captured the scene
for the live broadcasts.

Did the other probes have a video transmitter as well?

Here is a description of how the lunar orbiter imaging system worked
in the 60's.
"The Lunar Orbiters had an ingenious imaging system, which consisted of a dual-lens camera, a film processing unit, a readout scanner, and a film handling apparatus. Both lenses, a 610-mm narrow angle high-resolution (HR) lens and an 80-mm wide-angle medium resolution (MR) lens, placed their frame exposures on a single roll of 70 mm film. The axes of the two cameras were coincident so the area imaged in the HR frames were centered within the MR frame areas. The film was moved during exposure to compensate for the spacecraft velocity, which was estimated by an electric-optical sensor. The film was then processed, scanned, and the images transmitted back to Earth.

[[L.O. 5 hi-res. view of Tycho]] [[L.O. 2 panorama]]
edited to give link:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/lunarorb.html

Cool

Check this out: http://www.spaceref.com/redirect.ref?url=nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-moon.html&id=2816


and this:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planets/moonpage.html

same low resolution photo's nothing new

One point that no-one has made yet... How is it possible that the ratio of the diameter of the moon vs distance to the sun is exact enough to cause a perfect fit solar eclipse? What are the odds on that? You'd have more chance of winning the lottery ten weeks running than finding that again in the universe... Implies intelligent intervention of some kind in my opinion...

It is my contention that the lack of close up photo's of every part of the moon is the biggest mystery. Nearly 50 years of probes landers and Astro-nots, dont add up to the few low resolution photo's available

I think that's a good point. I don't know if ancient artifacts or recent bases exist on the moon but the available data is SO shallow, and we've actually landed there for god's sake!

My first reaction to this post was, well ... we know very little about the ocean and it makes up the majority of our planet, so why should we know more about the moon?

It then occurred to me that the moon has no atmosphere, if you photograph the moon from space, there is no obstacle to look through (studying the ocean is hard because you have to look through water to see it's inhabitants and its shape, not to mention the difficulty it's size offers to anyone trying to understand it). To my (admittedly amateur) understanding, there is no physical barrier like water or atmosphere to interfere with our view of the moon's surface. So why are we just seeing a 'low rez' view of the moon? It doesn't make sense to me. With current technology we should be able to count the grains of dust (at least on the side facing us)!

I suppose my point is there should be a 3D tour of the moon by now but the best we have available is grainy pictures. I'm not saying there is a grand conspiracy regarding the moon but one would expect more information than is presently available. How can one not wonder, considering the close proximity of the moon, why don't we have better pictures?

Mmmm, let's clear up a few things:

1) Nearly every part of the lunar surface has been photographed (including the backside). Exept for areas near the poles, which are a bit difficult (=expensive) to reach, because highly inclined orbits are difficult to achieve.

2) The max resolution for pictures of the moon is not unlimited. For Earth-based telescopes, it is limited by atmospheric disturbances, for orbiting telescopes by the optical resolution of the telescope.

3) I think it has been surmised that Hubble could in fact see the landing modules, but why? The HST is VERY busy exploring space, why should we use priceless telescope time getting close-ups of areas we have actually visited? What could we possibly gain from that?

Hans

Why is there 1 Hubble ? Surely they could make a few more.

Originally posted by Star_One
Why is there 1 Hubble ? Surely they could make a few more.

They made loads, except all bar one face downwards and are used to spy on people. This is the conspiracy theory wrt Hubble, that it was largely assembled from OTS spy satelite technology, and they fitted a downward looking lense, which is why it's focus was off.

But that speaks volumes, that world governments are far more willing to spend money spying on each other than on science.

Back onto the subject of fuzzy moon photos vs crisp spy satellite images. Spy satellites relied on returning film for development until the early 1980's, as until then, film resolution vastly outweighed the quality of data obtainable via CCD devices.

Which brings us nicely to CCDs. CCDs are a fixed array of light sensitive memory bits, each flipped by incoming photons, and have several limitations. Firstly, the resolution of each single CCD isn't that impressive wrt photographic film. They Do suffer from bleed over, in that each pixel isn't wholly discreet, and will have it's data changed by that of it's neighbour, if it's neighbour is registering a very bright source. So bright sources lose resolution, so without attenuation BEFORE the light hits the CCD, an image of the moon, would lose resolution. Get some astronauts to fit Ray Bans to Hubble, and you might get that hi-res picture of the moon, But as Hubble was designed to gather AS MUCH LIGHT AS POSSIBLE so it could look at faint objects, and therefore effectively peer back in time, at very distant objects, it currently is not configured for staring at the moon. Of course, with film, you want better resolution, you focus on a larger film plate, but you can't do that with CCDs, as large ones are hard (read, expensive) to make., so you end up using an array of CCDs, and mosaicing images back together,

Pictures from fly bys. Two issues. Firstly, film return wasn't really possible with many of these missions, so all that is available are the scanned images. Well, what was the resolution of the scanner on the satellite? For the Luna missions, I'm guessing not that good (what was the quality of terrestrial TV like back then? Size of Terrestrial TV cameras?). Also, what was the data sending capability? What was the data storage capability? Think when this took place!! It was hard to store data on earth back then, just think how big computer MEMORY was. So you have a choice, Take a med-res image, store to memory, and spend an age transmitting it back at the slow speed the onboard modem could handle, or take a series of lower res shots, and get more. Sending a probe all the way to the moon for a few med-res shots doesn't sound like too much of a bargain to me.

It seems obvious to me why the quality of the shots is low, but then I work in IT (and have done for a while) and used to work in aerospace, with guys thet designed and built space telescopes.

So guys, if you think the quality should be better, get a PhD, get funding, and build something that can live up to your own high expectations!

Nasa has a history of total deception. There are always many levels of cooperation. For Instance.

Oct. 16 1996-- NASA officials stunned those interested in the Martian
anomalies by announcing that near-real-time imagery from the Cydonia
region would be transmitted by the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS).

At first glance it would seem that NASA has reversed its policy from
that in effect for the Mars Observer in 1993. At that time there were no
plans to provide near-real-time continuous data feed. Various reasons
were given as to why there could be hours of delay time even for the few
images that would be released to the public in advance of the
proprietary period of six months .

A summary of the previous policy may be found in The McDaniel Report,
page 23

"NASA's plan for Mars Observer images was that they would not be
broadcast directly to the public as they come in. No plan either to
take or to release pictures specifically of the AOC landforms was
articulated; a few hard-copy photographs of "selected features" were
to be released within weeks after transmission.
The recent NASA announcement not only appears to be a 180 degree policy
reversal on data release, but also appears to conform in part to the
recommendations from The McDaniel Report,
Specifically, NASA not only stated there will be near-real-time data
feed to the public from both Mars Pathfinder and Mars Global Surveyor,
but also stated that scientists and the general public would be notified
in advance as the Surveyor approaches the Cydonia region

We must repeat what we have said many times before: NASA's top priority
is for objects of the greatest scientific interest. If the Cydonia
objects are accorded little or no scientific interest (which remains
NASA's assessment), the priorities will not be adjusted accordingly. We
must recall Goldin's statement "You can't give priority to everything."

IN SUMMARY:

The images released in near-real-time to the public are useless ones
from the mapping camera. Histograms show out of 256 colors of grayscale 60 percent has been omitted. taking the remaining 40 percent to contruct the photo which removes any abilities to analyze the anomalies.

You could direct your inquiries to some of the other governments that are surveying Mars now; surely NASA's conspiracy doesn't extend to Russia or Japan, although it might extend to UK.

THE FIRST COMMERCIAL VENTURE TO THE MOON: Transorbital® is the
only private company to be authorized by the US State Department and NOAA for
commercial flights to the Moon. The TrailBlazer® lunar orbiter will be the first
delivery service to the Moon. Delivered to the Moon surface in a special capsule
will be your certificates, business cards, cremated remains, jewelry, artwork and
many other items of choice. The Trailblazer® satellite will deliver commercial and
scientific projects and experiments to lunar orbit, as well as conduct lunar
exploration and mapping.
During its voyage to the Moon, Trailblazer® will provide live
streaming video of the entire mission, pictures of earth from space, detailed maps
of the full Moon surface, photographs of Apollo landing sites including Apollo 11,
dramatic EarthRise; video and a mission ending live HDTV video broadcast of
the spacecraft as it "Barn-Storms" over the lunar terrain.

http://www.transorbital.net/

The paradigm shift approaches!

I don't really get why 'special authorization' is required. I understand that governing bodies will want to make sure the rocket is spaceworthy, or won't spin around and crash into a city or somethinhg but why else would/should they care who's going up? Does one have to get special authorization and jump through a bunch of beaurocratic hoops to go into space?

just curious.

I totally agree!
http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/landsat/sec107.html
http://www.iasl.mcgill.ca/spacelaw/

Yesterday I sent Zolt Levay an email, briefly asking about his earlier statement that the hubble was unable to photograph the moon. Amazingly I received his response today 12-04-2003

In fact that statement I made a long time ago is not true (it was just an
honest mistake, with no intent to deceive or mislead). Although for various
technical and scientific reasons, there has been only one Hubble observation
of the moon (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/1999/14/), which was quite
difficult to plan and execute and required great care to ensure no problems
with the telescope.

Zolt Levay

the Hubble was launched into space on April 24, 1990
his original e-mail was dated Mon, 4 Dec 1995 (see below)
I can't Beleive our Top Hubble people are this clueless when it comes to the abilities of the hubble after 5 years in space.
What are your thoughts?


E-mail from Zoltan Levay at STSCI :

X-POP3-Rcpt: mufor@mail
Return-Path: levay@stsci.edu
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 10:51:14 -0500
From: levay@stsci.edu (Zoltan Levay)
To: mufor@keyworld.mt
Subject: Re: Hubble pictures
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII


> ...has Hubble taken any photos of the moon?

No, the moon is too bright (even the dark side) to observer with HST.

> If you know of any FTP sites...

Try the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Lab:
seds.lpl.arizona.edu in /pub/images/planets/moon.

If you have World Wide Web access, these images and many more are available via
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/ninepla...antes/luna.html

Zolt

Fluid, you contradict yourself. Do NASA have hi-res pictures of the moon captured from various previous probes? If so, can you explain why they need to use Hubble to get high res pictures of just one side, if they already have most of the lunar surface photographed? Why should they waste Hubble time getting data they already have?

Why they haven't released all this data is a different story. Cost, maybe, scanning the images. They'll get around to it I'm sure.

Quality of pictures vs terrestrial pictures. Well, the earth has been completely photographed by spy satellites, and if you want a picture from one, you have to pay for it, there's no free hi-res archive. Why should the Moon, therefore be open season? NASA has a limited budget, a failing Shuttle Fleet, and a comittment to the ISS it can't meet. It's got far more pressing matters than trying to satisfying a few conspiracy nutters with images they won't trust unless those images show buildings and structures.

Also, it's about ownership of data. In Europe, most Principle Investigators get only one years exclusivity to the data from their observations, after that, it becomes public domain, and anyone can access the information, and this data can be downloaded by anyone, and analysed by anyone. From US based PIs I've known, this isn't the case, and data is exclusively owned by the PI for ever, and if you know they have data from an observation that you want to analyse, you have to kiss ass and put people down as second author on your papers sometimes. So perhaps NASA just don't have to share?

Anyway, let's see the images of buildings, the high res ones, that people have supposedly seen. If they exist, you'd have thought someone would have leaked one. The fact we haven't seen any, just makes me think that this is another case of canals on Mars.

I think my impatient attitude is justified when you take a look at the big picture.

I was 3 years old when the first moon probe was sent to the moon.

I was 10 years old when Neil went for his moon stroll.

I was 31 when hubble was sent into space. And now 44 years old and we still dont have high res pictures of the moon ?
They will get around to it eventually just doesn't cut the mustard or mayo whatever your preference.

Apollo 18 was already paid for and crew all ready trained. No technical problems arose when the plug was pulled on this final mission why ?

I am quite aware that Hi res Photo's from previous probes and apollo missions exist. Making excuses for why they aren't in the public light at this late date is absurd.

Many scientists have requested hubble to photo the moon because of the lack of hi res pictures available to them. It's these excuses that have stalled scientific examination of what is probably mankinds greatest discoveries.

Originally posted by fluid1959

I am quite aware that Hi res Photo's from previous probes and apollo missions exist. Making excuses for why they aren't in the public light at this late date is absurd.



Fluid, the difference between us, is that I have worked with scientists, archived satellite data, and met astronauts, and I know I was not privy to some conspiracy. You might think that NASA and every other space organistion are trying to prevent you from seeing this stuff, when in actual fact, it's YOU preventing yourself from getting your hands on the data.

Get a PhD, and go work for NASA. Satisfy your own curiousity, don't expect others to do it for you.

Originally posted by phlogistician

Get a PhD, and go work for NASA. Satisfy your own curiousity, don't expect others to do it for you.

I will try to be civil.

That is the most moronic , stupid thing I have heard you blurt out to date!

Exactly what are the qualifications to get hi res Photo's?

That I have a PhD and I work for NASA.

Please send whatever it is your smoking .. to me!

Your ridiculous
" I DONT WORK FOR NASA! NASA IS SUPPOSED TO WORK FOR ME !"

But you made an excellent point.

You and NASA share that same moronic beleif that NASA doesn't have to answer to the "here it comes" " THE PUBLIC"

Only NASA Geologists, Astrologists etc.

can have opinions on data?

Joe Public paid the Hundreds of Billions of dollars spent so far on our space program.


How many rocket scientest are needed to take a photograph ?

Fluid - the fact that you pay taxes never has made you privy to the results of what they fund. NASA is an organization that uses your tax money to do whatever they feel like, and they don't have to give you their information any more than the President has to give you a room in the White House...

You may think that this is WRONG - by all means, go ahead!

But it's not ILLEGAL, so there's not much you can do...

I would only say that, given the amount of information that they've released about the rest of space, it's strange that they would deprive the public of hi-res photos of the moon if they had them; they'd touch them up, or something, if they didn't want you to see the alien Lunar fungus farms. Most of the lunar pics are B+W from what I've seen, I could probably do a credible touch job myself with Photoshop and no one would know the difference.

Many live in a fantasy world. Oblivious to what their neighbors are doing; let alone their government Officials or offices of goverment like NASA. The Space Act http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/spaceact.html#POLICY

Sec. 102. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.

not just phlogistician and a few Phd's @ NASA

There is a vast amount more Astromers Geologists Physicist etc that dont work at NASA than there are that do. Working for NASA doesn't make you smarter, or make your opinions more valid to the scientific end.

I beleive I discovered man made structure on Mercury !

In my search for moon Images I found this, originally thinking it was of the moon.

Please tell me what you think !

http://www.longislandlan.com/mercmos2.jpg
hi res version
http://www.donaldedavis.com/BIGPUB/MERCMOS1.jpg

lower res nasa
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/mercury/mercuryglobe2.jpg

Originally posted by fluid1959

Exactly what are the qualifications to get hi res Photo's?
That I have a PhD and I work for NASA.

Yep, that would be a start. None of the people I know that have PhDs and have worked for NASA share your conspiracy theories. Maybe because they've seen the data and know there's nothing untoward? If you are really sure of your conspiracy theory, surely, spending three years getting a Phd to satisfy a lifetimes curiousity is a good deal? Or aren't you bothered to invest the time?


" I DONT WORK FOR NASA! NASA IS SUPPOSED TO WORK FOR ME !"

Where do you get that idea from? Just 'cos you pay taxes? What other govt organisations does that mentality apply to? The military? The police? can you get the army to invade countries you want them to because they work for you? Or get the police to let you off a speeding ticket 'cos they work for you? NO! So just why should NASA do what you want? NASA do what the consensus of scientists who work for them want to do! If you want NASA to do something, go join them, and try and steer them your way.



You and NASA share that same moronic beleif that NASA doesn't have to answer to the "here it comes" " THE PUBLIC"


It doesn't. It just spends your money on what it wants to do. DUH!


Only NASA Geologists, Astrologists etc.
can have opinions on data?


If they are the only people with access to the data, then yes. DUH!


How many rocket scientest are needed to take a photograph ?

They've got photographs. You haven't. Quite bitching and get a PhD, and maybe they'll let you see them.

Originally posted by fluid1959
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/spaceact.html#POLICY[/url]

Sec. 102. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.



Oh, really, .... you're reading is a little out of date;

"The United States Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has announced that his country is to implement the White House-s policy to militarise space."

Source;

http://english.pravda.ru/politics/2001/05/10/4940.html

So, you are completely wrong. It is the goal of the United States to completely militarise and dominate space for the sole benefit of the USA.

If you kept up with your reading on facts, rather than space fantasy, you'd know that the USA and ESA ar at loggerhaeds over the European Galileo GPS system. This is because the USA want to control space, and space based resources that are useful in wartime. If they control this data, they always have an advantage. This is Why Russia is also building GLONASS, and China the Beidou system, to diminish the technogical lead the USA has, and establish an equal military foothold in space.

So, space isn't for your benefit, sorry. It a resource that world govts are fighting over, albeit fairly politely at present.

Originally posted by phlogistician
So, you are completely wrong. It is the goal of the United States to completely militarise and dominate space for the sole benefit of the USA.

And another reason to despise the current administration.

What a dispicable race of beings we are.

in post by phlogistician:
Oh, really, .... you're reading is a little out of date;
=====================================

Out of date? The Pravda article was dated May 5, 2001. Although
the space act was inacted in 1958, the late update to it was on
Dec. 14, 2001.
I read Pravda sometimes, too. Phlogistician, do you accept their
articles as accurate and balanced? I guess you will have no problem
accepting the following article:
http://english.pravda.ru/society/2003/04/01/45389.html
;)

Pravda was just one of the first sources I came across, and I linked it because it amused me, having seen the link to the structures on the moon posted here before. I linked it for the exact reasons you did, trust in a particular source.

But the militarisation of space stories have been in the press a lot recently, partly becaus ete USA is getting pissy with ESA about Galileo, as it levels the playing field.

Here's some from other, more recent sources.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,649931,00.html

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsControl/Space.asp

Of course, the space act doesn't carry much weight, as it's US only , the United Nations treaty on the use of space is far more relevant having being agreed on by more than one self serving nation, but we know just how much Bush et al pay attention to UN advice at the moment.

Anyway, here's a nice little snippet from the US 1958 Space Act;

"The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.


...except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President"

So basically they start with a lofty sounding ideal, and then cut the bullshit and reserve their right to militarize space.

Great, eh?

And Vrob, yes, we are pretty despicable. So why would aliens conspire with the governments that perpetrate such things? Surely, they'd make themselves known, and perhaps tell us to clean our act up. You know, a bit like 'The day the Earth stood still'?

by phlogistician:
And Vrob, yes, we are pretty despicable. So why would aliens conspire with the governments that perpetrate such things? Surely, they'd make themselves known, and perhaps tell us to clean our act up. You know, a bit like 'The day the Earth stood still'?
==============================================

If we are going to use movies and TV to interpit possible alien
agendas, why not Star Trek? Perhaps the aliens are a members
of a space-faring Federation. You know, don't interfer with the
internal politics of a "primitive" world, only if they acquire the
technology to present a threat to other worlds will they be admitted
to, and governed by the Federation. A bit like Star Trek's Prime
Directive. Speculation on alien agendas is just that, speculation.

Originally posted by 2inquisitive
... Perhaps the aliens are a members
of a space-faring Federation. You know, don't interfer with the
internal politics of a "primitive" world, only if they acquire the
technology to present a threat to other worlds ...

That is a fair speculation, after all, it's what we try and do on earth with wildlife, watch and observe, without affecting the behaviour of a species, and yes, we do occasionally capture species, and perform tests on them, so the analogy almost holds.

It just falls down when we include the technological advantage alien beings must have to be able to come visit us.

If they can get here in a reasonable time from a nearby star, they have found ways to do increbible things. So you'd think their DNA analysis of humans would be top notch, and they could do that from stuff we leave lying around, they would actually have to confront us ever. They should be able to use MRI scans on us, to determine our internal structure easily. They should at least be able to make a decent anaesthetic!

Would leaving behind structures on the Moon for us to discover fit that ideal though? I don't think so. Unless they were left as part of a paper trail. In which case, if we are supposed to find them, why do they keep coming here?

Btw, a quick bit of digging on the NASA web site revealed lots of med res piccies of the moon available, and microfiche of originals for sale. Looking at the mission data for some of the probes, and the distances some of these pictures were taken, the resolution is as good as it's going to get. Just where does the idea come from that there better, and what are the numbers, and from what missions? Or is there such a big coverup we don't even know that ;-) ?

this picture is pretty AMAZING!!!!
its from www.keithlaney.com

That is definetly a entrance (natrual or rtifical its definetly some kind of entrance)
Theres also so many other weird object's on the even considering the poor image qualityIMG]http://www.keithlaney.com/TargetMarsHome/4-27H1mining.jpg[/IMG]

Er, which bit? All I see are craters etc.

Could you mark which bit you think is the entrance, and upload to an image host for us?

Here, on one of the images (first one(i think:) ) i VERY slightly removed some shadows

http://metallicarule.20megsfree.com/images/big_entrance.jpg

http://metallicarule.20megsfree.com/images/big_entrance_closeup.jpg

Images orginaly from www.keithlaney.com

Originally posted by Star_One
this picture is pretty AMAZING!!!!
its from www.keithlaney.com

That is definetly a entrance (natrual or rtifical its definetly some kind of entrance)
Theres also so many other weird object's on the even considering the poor image qualityIMG]http://www.keithlaney.com/TargetMarsHome/4-27H1mining.jpg[/IMG] Entrance? You mean a hole? There is a hole on the surface of Mars? How very interesting. :rolleyes:

What other weird objects?

Hans

Ah, I see, 'cos it appears square? Iif you look closely at the image, you'll see a few pixels of an intermediate greyscale to the top, and right sides, which soften the hard edge. Plus, the top edge is on the boundary of where the images were mosaiced together, and if you've ever written or used software to do that, you'll know that normalising colour (or greyscale) palettes is hard, and strong differences at boundaries can mess things up (as it is hard to detect edges at boundaries, AND normalise greyscales so gradations blend properly. Lighting conditions could have changed considerably between the pictures).

So you have a crater, in shadow, with a fairly string light source causing a little too much contrast around the crest. Hmm. Not really compelling. Now what's the resolution of that picture? How many metres per pixel, and just where are we going to find an opening of similar size on earth for comparison? Anything man made spring to mind? No? Why is that?

i must say im not convinced,it looks too much like some kind of entrance thingy, especially when you zoom in and brighten it ....

there was a couple of other image from keithlaney.com i was gonna post but cant find them, will post them tommorow

Here it is, what on earth is the circular object in the middle????, could it be a part of a crashed probe????
http://www.keithlaney.com/Apollo-digs/AS16-116-18603details.jpg

I desperately want to see evidence of structures on other planets/moons but ARE YOU PEOPLE JOKING? This could only be proof to someone who worships a collection of virgin mary shaped potato chips! To call this evidence lacking is a dramatic understatement. It's a small blurry blob that, when enlarged, becomes a big really blurry blob.

This kinda stuff is not helping 'the cause' guys. Better to offer no evidence at all than things this weak and ambiguous.

Buffys: I couldn't have said it better!

And these are NASA pictures. Obviously, NASA experts have been looking quite closely on those pictures (when you spend a couple of billion bucks on taking some pictures of Mars, you do look closely at them). If there was something weird there, they would have noticed.

Ahh, the conspiracy theory? :bugeye: Well, an agency struggling for budgets would hardly want to hide something that could practically ensure them a blank check, but IF they wanted to hide something, then please tell me why they publish the pictures on the internet? :rolleyes:

This parrot would't VOOM if you put a million volts through it.

Hans

In 1959, the Soviet Union got the first close look, as the Luna 1 probe passed within 4,660 miles of the moon

Luna 2 was a bigger hit -- literally, as it impacted the lunar surface.

Luna 3, in the same year, flew past the moon, sending back the first pictures of the "dark side" -- the side that faces away from Earth.

in 1964, when the unmanned Ranger 7 spacecraft crashed into the lunar surface. Ranger 8 and 9 followed in 1965,

Soviet Luna 9 probe was a landmark, making a soft landing on the moon in 1966

U.S. Lunar Orbiter probes circled the moon in 1966. In 1966 and 1967, a total of 14 U.S and Soviet probes orbited and landed on the moon, in the first extraterrestrial rush hour.


Pioneer: Series of five lunar flights, only Pioneer 4 was successful, 1958-1959.
Ranger: Series of hardware and imaging flights to Moon.
Surveyor: Series of softlander flights to the Moon.
Lunar Orbiter: Series of imaging missions to Moon.
Clementine: A cooperative DOD/NASA lunar mapping mission. Clementine was launched on 25 January 1994
Not to mention lunar prospector missions ?

The Apollo missions;
were very interesting, because they were all made to study the moon. Of all the Apollo Missions, six of them landed on the moon. These landings occured between 1969 and 1972. These missions provided scientists with information on the Apollo misssions, such as pictures, surface and orbital expiriment results, sample collections, and surface operations. The six landing missions were
Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17.

How many Moon missions does it take to get high resolution pictures of the moon surface around the whole planetary body?
Thee answer as of yet is ? We don't know ! We still don't have high resolutions photo's "especially where we know there are objects to study.

People such as MRC Hans/Buffy with their pre-conceptions of what NASA is,.. make fine points, until you include one little thingy they missed.... that would be the facts.

NASA = Never Admit Seeing Anything

NASA is as important to Space research as Project Blue Book was to UFO Research.

They are a Public front intended to take any exposure away from our real space agency, The United States Military.

Merry christmas

December 25 2003

http://berlinadmin.dlr.de/Missions/express/indexeng.shtml

NASA=Never Admit Seeing Anything

ESA=Eat SHit Americans ; Here comes Europe

16th Dec 2003
All day
Fine targeting of Mars Express to point at the landing site


19th Dec
06:51 GMT
Decision to release Beagle 2


19th Dec
08:11 GMT
Eject command sent to Mars Express


19th Dec
10:15 GMT
First results of release available


20th Dec
All day
Retargeting of Mars Express on an orbital insertion course


23rd Dec
T.B.D.
Update on Mars Express orbital insertion sequence


24th Dec
Night
Final decision to steer Mars Express into a Martian orbit


25th Dec
02:54 GMT
Beagle 2 lands on Mars


25th Dec
03:00 GMT
Mars Express orbital insertion


25th Dec
05:15 GMT
Mars Odyssey orbiter flies over Beagle 2 - first possible signal retrieval from the lander


25th Dec
07:00 GMT
First evaluation of Mars Express orbital insertion


25th Dec
07:15 GMT
Sunset on Mars (18:35 local solar time)


25th Dec
20:02 GMT
Sunrise on Mars (07:02 local solar time)


25th Dec
22:45 GMT
Possible direct capture of Beagle 2 signals at Jodrell Bank Observatory (UK)


26th Dec
07:55 GMT
Sunset on Mars (18:36 local solar time)

http://www.beagle2.com/index.htm

Hey Fluid, I used to work with some of the guys that built parts of Beagle-2.

I don't think any of them are expecting to find Martians with their instruments, ....!

Originally posted by phlogistician
Hey Fluid, I used to work with some of the guys that built parts of Beagle-2.

I don't think any of them are expecting to find Martians with their instruments, ....!

Was it the little rubber feet thay keeps things from sliding ?

Let me just add some pertinent information also.. I have a rash on my ass. And I'm a really cool guy.

So I guess this mission will only find information that the scientists expect to find? Some scientific investigation? Kinda like you with your preconceived notions of reality. Firm in your stance until the bitter end. For someone like you bitter is the key!

Originally posted by fluid1959
Was it it the little rubber feet thay keeps things from sliding ?

Let me just add some pertinent information also.. I have a rash on my ass. And I'm a really cool guy.

Hey, you're a funny guy. Well, you amuse me with all your wild theories anyway. Keep it up.

That rash, been probed a bit too much recently?