572 replies to this topic

[nowensone]

Perhaps all that this "issue" needs is a simple spark to ignite a forest fire - Cityboi, perhaps the evidence you have amassed would be a good slow-day/filler story for the News & Record if you can convince them to run such a thing.  And hopefully the snowball begins rolling from there.  I have some knowledge of the historical aspects of this subject and still knew nothing about the saucer images present in classic artwork like this, so if it is genuine it should be quite compelling to people (one would think), in addition to everything else.

One thing though - while the NASA moon smudges are quite interesting, they are by Photoshop user standards completely amateurish, you'd think the government could employ better if indeed a coverup was intended.  A complete novice could learn to use the clone/stamp tool along with a quick blur of the edges to make the changes blend in seemlessly in 10 minutes, so how do we know the smudges weren't created simply to claim something was covered up?

[cityboi]

nowensone, on Mar 13 2007, 06:31 AM, said:

Perhaps all that this "issue" needs is a simple spark to ignite a forest fire - Cityboi, perhaps the evidence you have amassed would be a good slow-day/filler story for the News & Record if you can convince them to run such a thing.  And hopefully the snowball begins rolling from there.  I have some knowledge of the historical aspects of this subject and still knew nothing about the saucer images present in classic artwork like this, so if it is genuine it should be quite compelling to people (one would think), in addition to everything else.

One thing though - while the NASA moon smudges are quite interesting, they are by Photoshop user standards completely amateurish, you'd think the government could employ better if indeed a coverup was intended.  A complete novice could learn to use the clone/stamp tool along with a quick blur of the edges to make the changes blend in seemlessly in 10 minutes, so how do we know the smudges weren't created simply to claim something was covered up?

because the images with the smudges come directly from NASA and hasnt been altered by hoaksters after they were released to the public. That what makes that evidence credible

There is all kinds of evidence around us. The problem is the burden of proof. Science calls for ABSOLUTE proof to scientifically say that UFOs and extraterestrial are real. The mentality is that if you have no absolute evidence than its not real. Also add in the fact that despite the evidence around us, its very difficult for us to believe this stuff is all true. Alot of that has to do with the crazy flying saucer films of the 1950s and modern movies like ET and Independence Day. It would be a dramatic social shift in society to introduce another intelligent lifeform in our society and that could be a very big reason for keeping it secret. As our own world history shows, when a technilogically more advance country discovers a lesser advance society, they end up conqering and taking over. I know its difficult to believe any of it but you gotta recognize that the chances of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is very high given the size of the universe and the billions of stars out there with planets. If life can evolve here, it can evolve elsewhere and whos to say that there is an intellegent race out there thats hundreds of thousands of years ahead of us in technology. We always assume that if there is intellegent life out there, they have no more than about hundred years of technologly over us or slightly less intellegent. There are things about the universe that we will never know and im sure if we knew, we'd be very surprised. The universe is very puzzling because it hard to comprehend a universe that has no boundaries and goes on forever, but its also difficult to comprehend a universe that has boundaries because then youd have to ask whats beyond the boundaries of the universe. Its really mind boggling when you think about it.

Edited by cityboi, 13 March 2007 - 07:59 AM.

[nowensone]

^ As to the smudges, I didn't mean hoaksters getting to NASA's images, but NASA themselves - if they had been trying to cover up something they would have removed the evidence properly, the fact that the job done is so childishly bad says to me that perhaps they wanted to give the appearance that something was covered up.

[cityboi]

nowensone, on Mar 13 2007, 08:45 AM, said:

^ As to the smudges, I didn't mean hoaksters getting to NASA's images, but NASA themselves - if they had been trying to cover up something they would have removed the evidence properly, the fact that the job done is so childishly bad says to me that perhaps they wanted to give the appearance that something was covered up.

but that wouldnt make any sense. If you have very credible people like Neil Armstrong, other Apollo astronauts and other people that were high up in the ranks with NASA saying there is stuff on the moon and in fact if it were true, it wouldnt make sense for NASA to purposely put smudges for people to notice them. I think they didnt realize no one would notice because at the time who would imagine or even believe there is a base of some sort on the moon? The moon is extremly large with combined images covering the entire surface of the moon with some smudges on a very small portion. In their mind who would have noticed?

Edited by cityboi, 13 March 2007 - 09:11 AM.

[rnc]

Cityboi, regarding the "tubes" and "trees" and the "mars face".

I can't understand how "it is obviously a tube and is transparent" or you "know the objects in the photo are casting shawdows and seem to have branches".  No you don't.  You can't tell anything from those pictures.  Those are guesses at best.  First off, what is the scale?  100 km, 100 m, 100 nanometers?  Without context, there is no way to know what you are looking at.  Regarding the face on Mars, people see the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese too.

It kills me how the UFO guys make wild assumptions based on crappy and inconclusive photo and video evidence, then bash any scientist as being part of a coverup or they just "don't want to know the truth".  Sorry, but scientists, myself included, must rely on evidence and proof not speculation, conjecture and predetermined assumptions.

In my mind, it is basically a statistical certainty that life exists somewhere else in the universe.  However, whether they have gotten here or not is another issue.  I've seen some pretty strange videos out there that I can't explain.  Most of the stuff out there proves nothing though, there isn't enough detail to discern anything other than a light in the sky.

[Neo]

If we stopped going to the moon (and haven't been back since) because some aliens told us to stay away then why on Earth ( ) are we planning to go back and establish a base?

[nowensone]

cityboi, on Mar 13 2007, 10:03 AM, said:

but that wouldnt make any sense. If you have very credible people like Neil Armstrong, other Apollo astronauts and other people that were high up in the ranks with NASA saying there is stuff on the moon and in fact if it were true, it wouldnt make sense for NASA to purposely put smudges for people to notice them. I think they didnt realize no one would notice because at the time who would imagine or even believe there is a base of some sort on the moon? The moon is extremly large with combined images covering the entire surface of the moon with some smudges on a very small portion. In their mind who would have noticed?

It would make sense if, as many people believe, the govt. actually wants the attention so that the idea is generally discredited and trivialized.  Really depends on when the "smudges" were made.  Recently, or 40 years ago?  If recently, then even the most incompetent of graphic artists, or even one having no skills at all, could have done better work.  40 years ago, then maybe you have a point.

rnc, on Mar 13 2007, 10:07 AM, said:

It kills me how the UFO guys make wild assumptions based on crappy and inconclusive photo and video evidence, then bash any scientist as being part of a coverup or they just "don't want to know the truth".  Sorry, but scientists, myself included, must rely on evidence and proof not speculation, conjecture and predetermined assumptions.

In my mind, it is basically a statistical certainty that life exists somewhere else in the universe.  However, whether they have gotten here or not is another issue.  I've seen some pretty strange videos out there that I can't explain.  Most of the stuff out there proves nothing though, there isn't enough detail to discern anything other than a light in the sky.

Agreed on the preponderance of crappy visual evidence, but there are other "signs" that aren't so easily reputed, like documented radar incidents of objects entering and then leaving our atmosphere at trajectories and angles (speeds as well) impossible of inanimate or man-made objects, as well as at least one "landing site" with radiation patterns that cannot be duplicated on earth and composed of molecules we do not have the technology to make.

Personally, I am more fascinated by evidence that our planet has been visited in it’s past.  Diverse human cultures that had no contact among one another have similar drawings and accounts of things from the sky, many of which are little tainted by time and the human imagination.  The references in the bible have been quite tainted, but none-the-less still reference the same underlying events if they in fact happened.  Most human cultures have a story of Atlantis, and oddly, the word itself is phonetically similar if not the same among these cultures.  It was likely not some lost island, but something else entirely, and we simply described it in a way that we could comprehend.  Cro-magnon man appeared almost by magic when compared to the very gradual evolution of the previous stages of man, was there a tampering?  All speculation of course, but fascinating.

The UFO images in the paintings/images Cityboi posted are amazing, but I'm wondering how this would not be a topic of discussion in school, art classes, history classes, any number of places where students, teachers or scientists would have noticed them.  How are they not more publically known?

[rnc]

nowensone, on Mar 13 2007, 10:37 AM, said:

The UFO images in the paintings/images Cityboi posted are amazing, but I'm wondering how this would not be a topic of discussion in school, art classes, history classes, any number of places where students, teachers or scientists would have noticed them.  How are they not more publically known?

Those are fascinating, I've seen some of them before.  It is possible that we are seeing the same phenomena that they saw in previous times.  Perhaps it isn't alien spacecraft, maybe it is some rare natural occurence that we don't understand and it takes the shape of a bright disk.  Who knows, it is pretty cool though to see those paintings.

Edited by rnc, 13 March 2007 - 09:52 AM.

[cityboi]

rnc, on Mar 13 2007, 09:52 AM, said:

Those are fascinating, I've seen some of them before.  It is possible that we are seeing the same phenomena that they saw in previous times.  Perhaps it isn't alien spacecraft, maybe it is some rare natural occurence that we don't understand and it takes the shape of a bright disk.  Who knows, it is pretty cool though to see those paintings.

The problem with that is that people are seeing these objects pretty close and not always some distant light in the sky that could be anything. to them its very obvious that its a flying craft. and there is obviously some source for the ancient gods in past civilizations "that come from the skys". But I do think we need to be careful not to be closed minded or joke at the idea that we have been visited. Just because some idea seems crazy doesnt mean its not true. When we as a society thinks that way, now wonder its so easy to hide it from the American people. I guess people like Neil Armstrong, Jimmy Carter, Gereld Ford, former NASA communucation officers, astronauts, cosmonauts and other high profife people are crazy and need to be put in the looney bin. As the say reality is often stranger than fiction. But poll after poll every year shows that more than 50% of Americans believe that we have been visited and that the government is not telling what it knows about ufos. Its not the crazy 2% of the population. everyday sane people believe this

Edited by cityboi, 13 March 2007 - 12:07 PM.

[rnc]

cityboi, on Mar 13 2007, 12:40 PM, said:

The problem with that is that people are seeing these objects pretty close and not always some distant light in the sky that could be anything. to them its very obvious that its a flying craft. and there is obviously some source for the ancient gods in past civilizations "that come from the skys". But I do think we need to be careful not to be closed minded or joke at the idea that we have been visited. Just because some idea seems crazy doesnt mean its not true. When we as a society thinks that way, now wonder its so easy to hide it from the American people As the say reality is often stranger than fiction. but poll after poll every year shows that more than 50% of Americans believe that we have been visited and that the government is not telling what it knows about ufos. Its not the crazy 2% of the population.

Why is there obviously a source for ancient gods?  The human mind is an amazing thing, we are a pretty creative bunch of creatures.  In fact, there is a whole section in the library devoted to this creativity, it is called "Fiction".  In 2000 years will a future civilization think that dinosaurs roamed the earth in the 1990s because of Jurrasic park?

I'm not close mind on the subject.  However, I'm not going to see a smudge on a picture of the moon and jump to the conclusion that NASA is obviously hiding alien space towers.

None of those high profile people said they saw an alien spacecraft.  They saw a UFO (UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object).  They didn't know what it was and they can't explain it, there is a big difference.

Edited by rnc, 13 March 2007 - 11:55 AM.

[cityboi]

rnc, on Mar 13 2007, 11:49 AM, said:

Why is there obviously a source for ancient gods?  The human mind is an amazing thing, we are a pretty creative bunch of creatures.  In fact, there is a whole section in the library devoted to this creativity, it is called "Fiction".  In 2000 years will a future civilization think that dinosaurs roamed the earth in the 1990s because of Jurrasic park?

I'm not close mind on the subject.  However, I'm not going to see a smudge on a picture of the moon and jump to the conclusion that NASA is obviously hiding alien space towers.

None of those high profile people said they saw an alien spacecraft.  They saw a UFO (UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object).  They didn't know what it was and they can't explain it, there is a big difference.

when you combine the smudge photos with statements made by Neil Armstrong who is obviously not a crazy individual and statements from other high ranking former NASA offiicals, its got to get you thinking even if you dont believe it.  I have hard time believing these kind of people are making this stuff up. They have their reputations and legacies to protect and are not about to publically make up foolish tales. Sometimes it takes a combination of evidence to come to a conclusion. You are right. a smudge photo by itself doesnt prove anything.

Edited by cityboi, 13 March 2007 - 12:20 PM.

[erdogs]

I've read and watched everything you have presented here. I now command you to cease all communications and return to the mother base. Compute in your wrist modulator (== <> /--^></ ][ }{_ ::' ..:= <^>/) and we will come get you.

[cityboi]

very interesting photo which shows the same scene at different angles. in all angles some object at the edge of a crater has been smudged by NASA.



The following astonishing conversation was picked up by ham radio operators that had their own VHF receiving facilities that bypassed NASA's broadcasting outlets. At this time, the live television broadcast was interrupted for two minutes due to a supposed "overheated camera", but the transmission below was received loud and clear by hundreds of ham radio operators:

According to Otto Binder, who was a member of the NASA space team, when the two moon-walkers, Aldrin and Armstrong were making their rounds some distance from the LEM, Armstrong clutched Aldrin's arm excitedly and exclaimed:

Armstrong: What was it? What the hell was it? That's all I want to know!"
Mission Control: What's there?... malfunction (garble) ... Mission Control calling Apollo 11 ...

Apollo 11: These babies were huge, sir!... Enormous!... Oh, God! You wouldn't believe it! ... I'm telling you there are other space-craft out there ... lined up on the far side of the crater edge! ... They're on the Moon watching us! ...


Here is reproduced completely the dialogue between the American astronauts and Control Center:

Armstrong & Aldrin: Those are giant things. No, no, no - this is not an optical illusion. No one is going to believe this!

Houston (Christopher Craft): What ... what ... what? What the hell is happening? What's wrong with you?

Armstrong & Aldrin: They're here under the surface.

Houston: What's there? (muffled noise) Emission interrupted; interference control calling 'Apollo 11'.

Armstrong & Aldrin: We saw some visitors. They were here for a while, observing the instruments.

Houston: Repeat your last information!

Armstrong & Aldrin: I say that there were other spaceships. They're lined up in the other side of the crater!

Houston: Repeat, repeat!

Armstrong & Aldrin: Let us sound this orbita ... in 625 to 5 ... Automatic relay connected ... My hands are shaking so badly I can't do anything. Film it? God, if these damned cameras have picked up anything - what then?

Houston: Have you picked up anything?

Armstrong & Aldrin: I didn't have any film at hand. Three shots of the saucers or whatever they were that were ruining the film

Houston: Control, control here. Are you on your way? What is the uproar with the UFOs over?

Armstrong & Aldrin: They've landed here. There they are and they're watching us.

Houston: The mirrors, the mirrors - have you set them up?

Armstrong & Aldrin: Yes, they're in the right place. But whoever made those spaceships surely can come tomorrow and remove them. Over and out.

names of astronauts who said they've seen UFOs close up

1951 - Donald Slayton - Mercury - 1951
1962 - John Glenn - Mercury - February 1962
1963 - Gordon Cooper - Mercury - May 15, 1963
1965 - Ed White & James McDivitt - Gemini - June 1965
1965 - Frank Borman - Gemini - December 1965
1965 - James Lovell - Gemini - December 1965
1966 - Richard Gordon - Gemini - September 1966
1966 - Pete Conrad - Gemini - September 1966
1968 - James Lovell - Mercury -1968
1968 - Walter "Wally" Schirra - Mercury - 1968
1969 - Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin - Apollo 11 - July 1969
1969 - Neil Armstrong - Apollo 11 - July 1969
1971 - David Scott - Apollo 15 - July 1971
1971 - James Irwin - Apollo 15 - July 1971
1972 - Ken Mattingly - Apollo 16 - April 1972
1972 - Charlie Duk- Apollo 16 - April 1972
1972 - John W. Young - Apollo 16 - April 1972
1973 - Eugene Cernan - Apollo - 1973

Edited by cityboi, 13 March 2007 - 08:50 PM.

[rnc]

Sorry, but I must keep playing skeptic.  

How do you know those pictures came from NASA?  Are they from a conspiracy theory website or straight from NASAs servers?  I'm guessing door #1.

100s (probably more like 1000s were listening in) of ham radio enthusiasts heard Armstrong and Aldrin, yet no one recorded it?  I'm not old enough to remember, but audio recording equipment was around during those days.  Given that this was the biggest event in human history, I would have to think someone would have recorded it.  This is exactly the problem with much of the UFO "proof".  Hundreds of unnamed ham radio enthusiasts heard this, yet there are no recordings and there is no one stepping forward to say they heard it.  It is all heresay, and according to the UFO enthusiasts they have all been silenced by the government and are scared to come forward.  I argue that this is impossible.  The entire world was watching.  Other countries, including our enemies, were listening to those same broadcasts that the ham radio enthusiasts heard.  Yet, no one from other countries came forward.  This would have to be a GLOBAL conspiracy to keep this silent, which I find hard to believe.

By the way, the mirrors are still there.

[cityboi]

rnc, on Mar 13 2007, 09:00 PM, said:

Sorry, but I must keep playing skeptic.  

How do you know those pictures came from NASA?  Are they from a conspiracy theory website or straight from NASAs servers?  I'm guessing door #1.

100s (probably more like 1000s were listening in) of ham radio enthusiasts heard Armstrong and Aldrin, yet no one recorded it?  I'm not old enough to remember, but audio recording equipment was around during those days.  Given that this was the biggest event in human history, I would have to think someone would have recorded it.  This is exactly the problem with much of the UFO "proof".  Hundreds of unnamed ham radio enthusiasts heard this, yet there are no recordings and there is no one stepping forward to say they heard it.  It is all heresay, and according to the UFO enthusiasts they have all been silenced by the government and are scared to come forward.  I argue that this is impossible.  The entire world was watching.  Other countries, including our enemies, were listening to those same broadcasts that the ham radio enthusiasts heard.  Yet, no one from other countries came forward.  This would have to be a GLOBAL conspiracy to keep this silent, which I find hard to believe.

By the way, the mirrors are still there.

actually the russians did come forward about the UFO exchange on the moon. They heard it and mentioned it. The question we should be asking is why the major media never covers stuff like this?

also those photos did come directly from the military's servers. I saw them and compared them. the comaprison of the different angles proves NASA tried to hide things in the satelite photos and they are not some random smudge. The question to ask is what is in those photos the government doesnt want us to see? there is suppose to be nothing but moon rock and craters up there.

Edited by cityboi, 13 March 2007 - 09:14 PM.

[rnc]

cityboi, on Mar 13 2007, 10:06 PM, said:

actually the russians did come forward about the UFO exchange on the moon. They heard it and mentioned it. The question we should be asking is why the major media never covers stuff like this?

also those photos did come directly from the military's servers. I saw them and compared them. the comaprison of the different angles proves NASA tried to hide things in the satelite photos and they are not some random smudge. The question to ask is what is in those photos the government doesnt want us to see? there is suppose to be nothing but moon rock and craters up there.

Could you provide a reference that shows the Russians came forward?

http://www.cmf.nrl.n...lementine/clib/
Here's where the pictures are, type in lat 70, long 240 and lat 64, long 265 at resolution 1 pixel = 1km and 768x768.

Pretty cool stuff.  It looks like errors where two images stitched together.  You can see the seams of the different images all over the scene, but in those spots (aka the towers) image registration is messed up.  I've seen problems like this with image registration techniques before, it looks like the two images overlapped more than intentended, creating blur in the overlap region.  Every seam you see on the scene is a slight registration error or blur.  The towers seem to be gross errors.  This could be fixed with some manipulation of the images.  An algorithm would have been used to stitch the images together.  My guess is the algorithm wasn't perfect (they never are).  It is especially hard to register images that don't contain many distinguishable features.  These scenes are essentially shades of gray, it is very easy for the algorithm to get confused when trying to create a seam.  FYI, I am an optical engineer but I'm more of a design/experiment guy.  However, I work with people that do this exact sort of work everyday.  I've talked to them often about the pitfalls related to image registration.

Also, based upon the 768x768 image resolution and the 1 pixel = 1 km scale, those things would be approaching 200km in height.  I'm pretty sure large aperture, ground based telescopes would be able to see structures that size.

Edited by rnc, 13 March 2007 - 10:53 PM.

[erdogs]

The only definitive thing we know is that the government is hiding something. It is either alien existance or they want us to think that to keep us off track for what is really going on. Perhaps these bases were built by us. Maybe this is all a cover-up of our own activities. Something is afoot, but what we don't know. I would love to have John Stossel investigate this.

[erdogs]

From Farrakhan:

BASHIR: You, I want again to go over, you remember the vision you experienced in 1985 on top of an Aztec mountain?



FARRAKHAN: Yes.



BASHIR: When you said that you had been beamed on board a UFO and flew into space. Do you still maintain that that's what happened to you?



FARRAKHAN: Oh, absolutely. I've maintained that for, since 1985, which is, what, 21 years now. I have never deviated from that experience, because that experience was as real to me as you sitting in front of me, Mr. Bashir.

[cityboi]

Il have to find the russian link.

here is a very creepy video. Its obviously a fake and really  supose to be a recreation of what was seen but its good entertainment and very creepy.

[cityboi]

some claim this video is real supposedly taken by Neil Armstrong himself. I have strong doubts about this. But it does like real. They should have a job in Hollywood.

Edited by cityboi, 14 March 2007 - 07:00 AM.