• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Aliens on the Moon? (oh my!)


Yes tyger and agree but surely if it goes aganist the US Consitition would that be classified as treason? The fact something seems to be odd on the Moon and does it point more to earlier civilisations from Earth ? which more plausible .
 
The Fed could not charge him with treason because to bring this charge against one of the more visible Apollo astronauts would obviously indicate that NASA and the fedgov are keeping major secrets from the public, the last thing they wish the public to know. The fact is that Aldrin seeks out opportunities to be interviewed in very public broadcast venues where he drops hints as well as talking more directly about objects not ours, e.g., the monolith on Phobos. He needs to get some more courage together before he leaves the planet for good and disclose all of what he knows and all of what he suspects.
 
I thought it was Buzz who was the one championing the pursuit of the anomalous object on Phobos? He seemed to speak with more of a clear head compared to the other astronauts.

And what a twinkle in his eye! :cool: He seemed a happy sort.

As for the giant object siphoning plasma from the sun, perhaps better science is needed before we start calling things tethers or massive alien ships...

Totally agree on this. A huge leap is being made with few facts to substantiate making the leap. All that is operating is the imagination. This is an example of something unproven driving a scenario. The belief in the scenario is impacting subsequent interpretations of data. This is not in itself a bad thing - it's done all the time in science. Example: 'If we assume an Electric Universe then the scarring marks on Mars make sense', etc. However, the assumption has to be clearly stated - and it is not in this case. The assumption - alien craft - is rendered as fact.


@Burnt State the link does not work. :(
 
Last edited:
I thought it was Buzz who was the one championing the pursuit of the anomalous object on Phobos? He seemed to speak with more of a clear head compared to the other astronauts.

As for the giant object siphoning plasma from the sun, perhaps better science is needed before we start calling things tethers or massive alien ships...

UFO+Sucking+Energy+from+the+Sun.jpg


http://www.livescience.com/19024-refueling-ufo-solar-prominence.htm
The part about tethering to the sun in order to drain plasma reminded me of the program Stargate Universe. Humans are trapped on an alien vessel traveling throughout the galaxy. The ship enters stars in order to recharge the ship's batteries.
 
Yes tyger and agree but surely if it goes aganist the US Consitition would that be classified as treason? The fact something seems to be odd on the Moon and does it point more to earlier civilisations from Earth ? which more plausible .

Now you come to one of my favorite scenarios - that the 'ancient astronaut theorists' are actually rustling around in humanity's attic. There was far more afoot in the past than humanity 'remembers' as a collective. The 'ancient astronauts' were us - not that we were astronauts but that we are seeing remnants of previous worldwide civilizations. If one posits that assumption, the anomalies 'make sense' - one doesn't have to posit 'ancient astronauts.'

BTW - I am watching an episode of 'NASA's Unexplained Files'. Some excellent analysis being offered with a 'dialog' of sorts being presented between the various proponents of alternate explanations of anomalies. What is fascinating is to see how easily NASA footage can be doctored.

I'm really learning - they are talking now about 'sympathetic lightening'. I have a hunch that electrical phenomenon is key to much. Something as 'simple' as electro-magnetism. Classified documents on magneto-aerodynamics - hmmmm.....great stuff!
 
Last edited:
The Fed could not charge him with treason because to bring this charge against one of the more visible Apollo astronauts would obviously indicate that NASA and the fedgov are keeping major secrets from the public, the last thing they wish the public to know. The fact is that Aldrin seeks out opportunities to be interviewed in very public broadcast venues where he drops hints as well as talking more directly about objects not ours, e.g., the monolith on Phobos. He needs to get some more courage together before he leaves the planet for good and disclose all of what he knows and all of what he suspects.
Charging Buzz Aldrin with treason is like imprisoning Willie Nelson for smoking pot. It will never happen.
 
Last edited:
Prior to watching Sunday evenings show I went back and I listened to Mr. Ecker's interview with Vito Saccheri. I found his testimony to be compelling and based on his background I felt that his opinions held some weight. His feeling was that based on the evidence he witnessed first hand from photos examined in Nasa's archives, that there is a presence on the Moon.

I agree that some of the photos were very ambiguous and some of the content was foolish. I am not a fan of Mike Bara nor Joshua P. Warren. With all of that said I felt that it was worth watching and though I may not have seen undeniable evidence of an alien presence on our moon, some of what I did see did lead me to believe that SOMETHING is going on up there. That something may be geological in nature or may represent a secret space program, or something else completely.
 
Prior to watching Sunday evenings show I went back and I listened to Mr. Ecker's interview with Vito Saccheri. I found his testimony to be compelling and based on his background I felt that his opinions held some weight. His feeling was that based on the evidence he witnessed first hand from photos examined in Nasa's archives, that there is a presence on the Moon.

I agree that some of the photos were very ambiguous and some of the content was foolish. I am not a fan of Mike Bara nor Joshua P. Warren. With all of that said I felt that it was worth watching and though I may not have seen undeniable evidence of an alien presence on our moon, some of what I did see did lead me to believe that SOMETHING is going on up there. That something may be geological in nature or may represent a secret space program, or something else completely.

You are correct Pigsinzen, the Saccheri interview is, in my opinion, one of the most compelling shows I ever broadcast. As to the program this past Sunday, I felt that Vito and Ron Collins were vastly underused. John Brandenburg was very compelling and I know John very well and know his background so for him to say what he did should make anyone sit up and take notice.

There has been and is a lot of discontent about this show around the web, but for those who claim many of the photos were blurry, today I pulled out Sturm's book and looked at a lot of the Apollo 11 shots. By God, there are weird and strange things there. However the one thing I saw very scant mention of was the photo I brought to the table, the pipe running thru the crater and extending out with a very strange extension on the end of it. Damned few have mentioned that anywhere. In my own and very humble opinion that is one of the most kick ass moon photographs I have ever seen ... and I have seen a bunch of them.

Decker
 
Don: what is your take on the whole apollo 20 thing the whole thing is a hoax. There are many reasons why I say that. .and if it is a hoax then dose not the including the hoax blunt the real facts presented?
 
Don: what is your take on the whole apollo 20 thing the whole thing is a hoax. There are many reasons why I say that. .and if it is a hoax then dose not the including the hoax blunt the real facts presented?

Ves, as I have told a number of people already in various forums, I consider the "alien Mona Lisa, Apollo 18 thru 20" totally bogus. It is at best a hoax and worst I consider it disinformation. More drek to confuse an already confusing issue.

Decker
 
Like most here I looked forward to SyFy’s Aliens On The Moon. The Truth Exposed and like many I was very disappointed when it aired. Although I have to say the title and the teaser with the Hoagland surrogate Bara, pretty much set the stage for disaster.

When they made Ron Collins appear to be endorsing the idea that there was a nuclear power station on the moon, I knew we were seeing some creative editing, because I knew that was not Ron’s position.

I was also shocked at how shabbily Buzz Aldrin was treated. We’ve heard him tell that story numerous times on television before, and the producers edited his account to make it sound like he was saying it was a UFO. He has said every time the whole story is allowed to be told, that he believed he identified it as a panel from the second stage. His refusal to play along with the agenda driven interview is understandable. Here is a national hero, a test pilot, astronaut, and second man on the moon. Braver men haven’t been made. I am certain his refusal to look the photographs had to do with discretion and past experience in similar situations rather than any lack of intestinal fortitude. At least he didn’t punch anyone out this time, although from the look on his face, I think he felt like it.

Alan and Vitto's stories got short changed to placate the ridiculous Apollo 20 hoax, which I refuse to comment on. What were the producers thinking?

...However the one thing I saw very scant mention of was the photo I brought to the table, the pipe running thru the crater and extending out with a very strange extension on the end of it. Damned few have mentioned that anywhere. In my own and very humble opinion that is one of the most kick ass moon photographs I have ever seen ... and I have seen a bunch of them.

Decker
bjQ3_xThSrg-jQOCvFNhulbJZc5ZLH3BeusK8K6jiqq-H5dyBGrYpjxWYY2UY5it6vsIVhIr5cACWTjHNOw0wgAq17JFDora_Z_HJDOdhfj7dkjTYJBAMwGQnvWG_TKy0w


As you know, I have been interested in your photograph since I first heard you mention it on one of your fascinating moon shows. I was thrilled when you graciously gave me the identifying numbers after your presentation of the photo during the April 2012 Alternate Universe i-Conference. That allowed Ron Collins and myself to identify the photograph and the crater in question. I appreciate that so much. I finally could stop looking through endless lunar photos for the crater.

My rule of thumb when looking into claims of anomalous features on the moon has been to attempt to identify the photograph, to identify the feature and its location on the moon, and ultimately to find other photographs that can confirm the presence of the anomalous feature. That has always proven to be difficult to impossible to do.

The numbers on your pipe photograph indicate that it was captured for the Consolidated Lunar Atlas program by the 61 inch telescope at the Steward Observatory Catalina Station on Mount Bigelow in the Santa Catalina Mountains 18 miles northeast of Tucson, Arizona on September 5th 1966 at 3:40 am Pacific Time. It is plate C8, photo number C 2593 of the Consolidated Lunar Atlas.

It makes sense that copies of the Atlas would be at JPL during that period. The features in the photograph are striking and I can also see why someone might mark the photo up to draw attention to them. However, it highly unlikely that it shows an artificial structure and here is why.

The crater in question is Manilius in the Mare Vaporum. Here is what Websters has to say about Manilius:

"http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Manilius
Manilius is a lunar impact crater on the northeast edge of Mare Vaporum. It has a well-defined rim with a sloping inner surface that run directly down to the ring-shaped mound of scree along the base, and a small outer rampart. The small crater interior has a higher albedo than the surroundings, and it appears bright when the sun is overhead. Within the crater is a central peak formation near the mid-point. The crater also possesses a ray system that extends for a distance of over 300 kilometers. Emphasis mine."

That higher albedo and the telescope's settings (adjusted for the bright moon rather than stars) in 1966 created a high contrast photo with strange features.

Identifying the crater allowed me to find other photographs of it made by both terrestrial telescopes and Lunar Orbiters. Very high resolution photographs of the crater interior are available on the Internet. The LROC browser allows you can see objects as small as a meter across on the ridge that appears to a 20 kilometer white line (or pipe) in the 1966 photograph.

The technology has changed to the degree that amatuer astronomers have taken better pictures of Manilias than the C 2593 photograph from the Consolidated Lunar Atlas. Here is one from Damian Peach, taken on March 26th and 27th, 2007, in Loudwater, UK. using a $4000 Celestron C14 telescope with a Lumenera SKYnyx 2.0M camera.

manilius_2012_03_01_1848ut.jpg



Here is a close up from a LROC screen capture.
zDZ7bJX2GFCWPNAfbQwQhXX_0Reqf4x2qPx2m0j8Nicl2lJS2YnY6cGk6F38WLs1dTEfMo5isj4xkPg7akr9CJfqF1nto0L7QU9W1KfMD2NPD0P3J2Ef2OyrwbJlvp5qEg


While I agree that there does appear to be an anomalous or artificial looking object in the photograph C 2593 taken in 1966, analysis of additional photographs of the region and the photograph itself indicate that it is a trick of light and shadow and not an artificial object. If there are artificial structures on the moon, I don't think they are in Manilius crater. I really wish there were my friend. As always, I remain your fan and look forward to your upcoming book on the UFO magazine days.

Additional Material:

Follow the link below and double-click on the image to “zoom in” to see even higher resolution images of the crater.
LROC ACT-ReACT quickmap tuned to the location shown in Don's slide.

Apollo Image Atlas - Manilius

Consolidated Lunar Atlas
Consolidated Lunar Atlas
Consolidated Lunar Atlas, C8
Consolidated Lunar Atlas

Lunar Chart
Mare Vaporum -http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapcatalog/LAC/lac59/150dpi.jpg
Mare Serenitatis -Lunar Chart (LAC) Series

Wiki Entries
the-moon - Manilius
Manilius (crater) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Attachments

  • MoonPhotoC2593.pdf
    5.2 MB · Views: 1
Last edited:
Don I agree that the Turkey UFO should probably have not been included because it had nothing to do with the Moon and it distracts from the real subject.

The good news is however is that at least it was not a CGI hoax or fraud.

I know this because of the TUBIAK Report which is a highly influential Turkish Scientific Research Board. They reviewed the cassettes pretty convinced they were going to be able to debunk it. They then released their findings to the media that concluded the videos remain unidentified and no tampering, altering was done to the cassettes. For more it can be read here. Turkey UFO Incident: National Observatory Report
 
Well, yeah - but that's a fairly quick sidling away. I am still curious: what did you expect him to say? His answer was that he took the pictures but it was for the analysts to determine what was in the photos. He was deferring to the analysts' opinions - and he clearly did not want to get drawn into an argument about the photos because, as he said, it wasn't his expertise. He was pretty clear.

We don't know if he has ever seen the photos - we do know he was declining to look at the photos and assess them on camera. Correct? Did he know that he was going to be presented with that in the interview?

If he didn't, he could have surmised that he would be asked about them in a documentary devoted to moon anomalies. And unless he entirely lacks curiosity, he would have asked to see the photos long ago. Is it possible that he and the other astronauts were in fact not involved in their analysis?

So what is up with Aldrin's volunteering partial information about moon anomalies {Phobos} and backing away from discussing his point of view on others on Luna in public media interviews? Is he contributing to 'disinformation' or 'creeping disclosure'? If the latter, are his public interviews an aspect of official creeping disclosure or his own attempt to support that agenda? We know from Bernard Haisch and Edgar Mitchell that there are insiders who have long sought disclosure and at times attempted to further, if not successfully provoke, it.

Similarly, was the Apollo 20 information a hoax, disinformation, or possibly another element of creeping disclosure? I thought at the time it was all being discussed on the internet that it was conceivable that there was indeed a secret cooperative US-USSR Apollo 20 mission to examine the object captured in the Apollo 14 photos. Surely both countries' space agencies were interested in finding out what appeared in those photos and would/could not make public the purpose of an expedition to that site. Cooperative efforts in moon and space exploration had been discussed between the highest officials of both countries since the early 60s, beginning on our side with President Kennedy. Indeed, at about the time of the purported secret Apollo 20 mission, the US and USSR were already involved in public cooperative efforts in space.

At the time of the internet releases of purported Apollo 20 footage by William Rutledge, it occurred to me that the suggestion of an ancient spacecraft found on the far side of Luna could be a logical step in creeping disclosure by the 90s when more people were open to the idea of et's in the vicinity of earth. The discovery of an ancient et craft would place the possible evidence at a vast distance in time from the present, an easier concept for many people to accept than claims of current et incursions on earth. I don't know what to make of the Mona Lisa footage. That part might be fiction, bizarre enough to cause the entire Apollo 20 mission to be dismissed as fiction for those who resist disclosure for one reason or another. At the same time, there are elements of the Mona Lisa footage that seem intended to reduce fear of extraterrestrials in anyone who might see it {the beauty of the figure's face, the fact that this is a woman, the serenity and even spirituality that her face expresses}. If this footage was hoaxed, it was the work of minds and sensitivities more complex (and perhaps more informed) than the minds of typical hoaxers.

In any event, there is considerable historical evidence to suggest that the secret Apollo 20 mission could indeed have been undertaken by three courageous individuals, two Americans and one Russian, to answer a question that exceeded the mundane interests of both countries' insiders.
 
Last edited:
I am watching an excellent report on the H2HD Channel with Ms Kean as major source (and others like Nick Pope): "Secret Access: UFOs on the Record". This is an excellent, sober rendering of the 5% of UFO sightings that cannot be explained away. It's a 2-hour report that never resorts to sensational claims or whizz-bang nano-second camera work. I guarantee that I am entertained, informed and convinced.

IMO There is no reason that an equally sober approach could not have been turned in with the Aliens on the Moon show. It is very disappointing.
 
Last edited:
I am watching an excellent report on the H2HD Channel . . . . It's a 2-hour report that never resorts to sensational claims or whizz-bang nano-second camera work. I guarantee that I am entertained, informed and convinced.

IMO There is no reason that an equally sober approach could not have been turned in with the Aliens on the Moon show. It is very disappointing.


How many more times do you feel compelled to say so?
 
Back
Top