proof of extraterrestrials?

[cityboi]

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 March 13, 2007 by cityboi

[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 March 14, 2007 by cityboi

[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]

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 March 14, 2007 by cityboi

[rnc]

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.navy.mil/clementine/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 March 14, 2007 by rnc

[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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO3CGs5UY3o

[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 March 14, 2007 by cityboi

[davidals]

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.

I'm willing to believe - weird stuff happens all the time, and I love Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (a great modern reworking of grail mythology). Governments cover things up often, so who knows?

I only have one question regarding the vid - what exactly is the difference between a manufactured meteorite, and a regular it-bonked-me-upside-the-head variety of meteorite? Geologically and astronomically, a meteorite is a space rock - an aggregate of various minerals - that landed on the earth's surface before burning up in the atmosphere. Was the meteorite manufactured elsewhere? If it was manufactured here, it's no meteorite - it's body modification, or a slab of faux marble. If it was manufactured elsewhere, it really couldn't be a meteorite, since it didn't fall from the sky, unless of course it was in a body that fell from the sky, in which case, surgery wouldn't exactly be of much help in answering any questions.

[Pillsbury]

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.

Hehe. That's funny to me.

[rnc]

I'm willing to believe - weird stuff happens all the time, and I love Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (a great modern reworking of grail mythology). Governments cover things up often, so who knows?

I only have one question regarding the vid - what exactly is the difference between a manufactured meteorite, and a regular it-bonked-me-upside-the-head variety of meteorite? Geologically and astronomically, a meteorite is a space rock - an aggregate of various minerals - that landed on the earth's surface before burning up in the atmosphere. Was the meteorite manufactured elsewhere? If it was manufactured here, it's no meteorite - it's body modification, or a slab of faux marble. If it was manufactured elsewhere, it really couldn't be a meteorite, since it didn't fall from the sky, unless of course it was in a body that fell from the sky, in which case, surgery wouldn't exactly be of much help in answering any questions.

I don't know if I can answer that, but the piece they showed in the video was a piece of single crystal silicon. Not silicone as the UFO "expert" said. We produce silicon all the time here on good ole planet Earth for computer applications, IR optics, and in solar panels. I have no idea why this was considered manufactured and extraterrestrial. It would be nice if they would explain these claims rather than just state it and move on, wouldn't it? Single crystal silicon breaks along a crystal plane. That is why the one side is glass smooth and the other side retained the machined surface.

[nowensone]

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.

Yeah, it is funny Pils, if Farrakhan was abducted, or any number of other people that make me shudder, the aliens are quickly leaving Earth having concluded that we are not a good candidate species for introduction to the rest of the universe. Or, in the event that humanity is nothing more than an experiment, that the experiment has failed.

[cityboi]

I don't know if I can answer that, but the piece they showed in the video was a piece of single crystal silicon. Not silicone as the UFO "expert" said. We produce silicon all the time here on good ole planet Earth for computer applications, IR optics, and in solar panels. I have no idea why this was considered manufactured and extraterrestrial. It would be nice if they would explain these claims rather than just state it and move on, wouldn't it? Single crystal silicon breaks along a crystal plane. That is why the one side is glass smooth and the other side retained the machined surface.

According to the scientist it has isoptopic ratios of material from space. thats what tells its orgion.

"truth is often stranger than fiction"

Edited March 14, 2007 by cityboi

[cityboi]

One piece of information that I thouht was quite interesting. According to NASA, the original film footage that showed the moon landing and Neil Armstrong on the moon is "lost" and they only have television footage of the landing. I find it interesting because the origional film footage that was taken on the moon was crystal clear and in color while the television footage is very poor quality. How the hell do you lose the origional film of one the most important events in human history? Im not buying that. Could it be that origional footage was clear enough to pick up strange lights or glows around the astronauts? could it be that the film had some stuff on it that wasnt televised due to a cover-up? such as UFOs or possible structures on the moon?

Edited March 16, 2007 by cityboi

[cityboi]

here is the link about the missing apollo tapes. After the moon landing the tapes were locked away at the national archive. No one knows why, but 700 of those tapes (including the first steps on the moon) were withdrawn from the archive in 1984 and no one knows where they are today. NASA says they are "lost" so to me its clear evidance the government is trying to cover something up. You just dont lose origional video tapes of one of the most important events in human history. That doesnt even make any sense. There are some interesting things on those tapes the government doesnt want us to see. To me its about putting two and two together. when you combine alot of evidence it pretty much paints the picture.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/one-gi...4198328978.html

NASA removes detailand shadows from the face

Edited March 17, 2007 by cityboi

[cityboi]

another interesting video that claims there is vegitation on some parts of mars and that the atmosphere is not really red as depicted but blue and the ground has earth tones. There is also evidence that NASA tampered with image of the latest image of the face on mars. very interesting stuff!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79aJSHE1c7Q

The TRUE atmosphere and ground color of mars. Bet you didnt know that most of the time the Martian sky is blue.

SURPRISE SUPRISE!

Temporary, the surface illumination is really red, caused by dust-storms, darkening the sky. The first image was taken shortly after or during such a storm and the diffuse light with almost no shadows is visible. In contrast to this, the second image shows sharp shadows and clear blue sky, the normal condition on Mars.

looks like weird Martian vegetation. These images were taken near the South pole on Mars. Scientist believe the poles of Mars contains water (solid on surface) but a possible heat source under the surface of Mars could produce liquid water allowing vegetation to grow on the surface.

source

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Gene...y/blue_sky.html

Edited March 17, 2007 by cityboi

[rnc]

http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/14C.html

Here is a nice explanation of the Martian atmosphere color in the above link. It explains the various colors of the Martian atmosphere are essentially due to dust particles suspended in the atmosphere due to constant dust storms. According to the link, the atmosphere is generally a yellowish/brownish color, but can sometimes be whitish or blue.

"If the Martian atmosphere were to be completely cleansed of dust, the daytime sky would appear blue, just as our own sky because of Rayleigh scattering by the molecules (primarily carbon dioxide molecules) which make up the atmosphere. It is possible (though unlikely) that future missions to Mars will find a different sky color."

Seems pretty reasonable.

[erdogs]

What are they hiding here?

[cityboi]

What are they hiding here?

If thats on Mars, they look like tracks of some sort.

[erdogs]

It's a NASA photo from Mars. I don't know why they would have a picture like that, looks fishy.

[dgreco]

yea i don't understand the cutting of the picture, but it could also be tracks just from whatever we have up there.

[Gusterfell]

yea i don't understand the cutting of the picture, but it could also be tracks just from whatever we have up there.

If I can play the skeptic for a moment, most likely the black areas aren't hiding anything. To me it looks like three rectangular photos stitched together to create one image.

[erdogs]

That could explain it, but I won't give my opinion either way. I've learned my lesson.