Mesmerized by the Moon

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by fluid1959, Nov 29, 2003.

  1. fluid1959 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    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. No other moons in the solar syste... NASA stand for Never Admit Seeing Anything ?
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2003
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pollux V Ra Bless America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,495
    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
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. fluid1959 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    fixed dead links

    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Star_One Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    268
    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
     
  8. AD1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    249
    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?
     
  9. fluid1959 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2003
  10. ArcticChill2k3 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    60
    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.
     
  11. fluid1959 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    Bush getting into moon vibe?

    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 ?
     
  12. fluid1959 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
  13. Star_One Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    268
    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?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The image is from www.thewhyfiles.co.uk
     
  14. AD1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    249
    > ...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?
     
  15. BigBlueHead Great Tealnoggin! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,996
    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.
     
  16. fluid1959 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    Not my train of thought

    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 ?
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2003
  17. BigBlueHead Great Tealnoggin! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,996
    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.
     
  18. fluid1959 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    Probes orbiting moon ?

    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/
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2003
  19. BigBlueHead Great Tealnoggin! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,996
    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.
     
  20. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    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.
     
  21. BigBlueHead Great Tealnoggin! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,996
    Did the other probes have a video transmitter as well?
     
  22. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    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
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2003
  23. BigBlueHead Great Tealnoggin! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,996

Share This Page