P
pixelsmith
Guest
i find the images in this video quite interesting. blows my mind actually.
-
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!
Rick Deckard
Paranormal Maven
pixelsmith said:
Firstly, let me start by saying that I don't trust NASA - I don't think they have given us ALL the information relating to the Apollo missions and I don't think they're are being totally honest about the environmental conditions on Mars. Also, the Moon and it's origins have 'bothered' me for a long time and continue to do so.
But, I think the video jumps to the incorrect conclusion for many of the images it show.
The lunar imaging satellite takes a continuous verical strip of images as it orbits the moon from pole-to-pole. As it completes an orbit, it shifts it's latitude slightly ready for the next imaging run. Eventually, it will have passed over the entire surface of the moon. Therefore, the data that is sent back to mission control is a series of 'vertical' strips taken in different lighting conditions - the imaging teams then have the task of 'stitching' the images back together to get a complete surface image of the moon. This is where the 'banding' problem occurs.
The 'mile high' towers don't appear to be casting any shadows which leads me to believe that perhaps this blurring is really due to something else - perhaps the image data for that particular area was somehow corrupt and instead of waiting for another 'pass' by the imaging satellite, they decided to 'smooth out' the corruption as best they could.
The idea that there may be 'bases' on the far-side of the moon is a possibility that I don't rule out. If I were an ETI looking to covertly monitor another planet, I would choose a moon to hide behind...
...the idea that the Moon may be 'artificial' isn't going 'too far' for me either.
The only images in the video of interest to me are the Mars 'Trees/Forests' - everything else looks like 'weather erosion' and rocks to me.
I do like the Golf Ball on Mars image, though.
CapnG
Devil's Advocate
With all the bumps and lumps on the moon's surface it's difficult to determine exactly what's what, espescially when it's been pixellated, blurred and otherwise distorted. I don't think it's possible to say one way or the other exactly what's on the moon besides the obvious. Given their history however, I doubt NASA is being straight with us, espescially concerning the far-side.
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
Ew. What's Bill Cooper vids doing next to it!?
What's up with the claim, the moon is unlike any other satellite in our "universe"? Um, how do they know this? We haven't came any where near seeing all the moons in the universe.....
The stationary orbit implies what? That there are bases on the moon? That it is older than the Earth? I don't see the connection.
I have marveled over the visual size similarities of the Earth moon and sun. This has interested me since realizing it. It's connection with bases and other things discussed is another connection I don't get however.
As for speed etc. Gravity accounts for it if i remember correctly.
The title was, "NASA, never a straight answer". Some of the data they used NASA agrees with, if not came from NASA.
It shows no characteristics of other moons? Hardly. It orbits a planet and is made of rock and has craters. It has a gravitational pull. There's a few. Has NASA denied this? How is the ascertion that there is no similarities connected with their case anyway? That shows there is life on the moon, that it's older than Earth, or that there are bases? Hardly.
How do they know it's cities that were smudged unless they seen unsmudged images? If they have seen the images, where did they get them from?
Same with only one size being visible. This indicates it came from the Earth over being older or there being bases on it. Another connection I do not see.
After seeing the next images and then being asked if I'm still not convinced, was indication to me to stop viewing. I was hardly impressed with what they were impressed with, plus I was wondering, convinced of what? That it's a video with fuzzy logic?
I attended a conference where Jesse Marcel Jr. showed some of the best images that I've seen (better than the supposed experts in that field) that some think is evidence of bases etc. on the moon. This included the first photo shown. It wasn't airbrushed. He got it from NASA if I remember correctly. If there is foul play in smudging the images, why would I think they aren't doing it over NASA?
Images of "bases" are no more than anomalies at best in my view. Nothing detailed enough to say that I've seen. More blurry than the Patterson film. And that is without the airbrushing. They also look nothing like buildings. One could argue, that they're ET buildings and that they look that way on purpose! Ok, you got me. I can't prove that that isn't the case. However they've hardly proven their case. As much as some here do not like Occam's razor, I do and I'll use it here regardless of possible flames.
I'm open to the possibility of bases on the moon. I just haven't seen good photos yet.
None of what I said was intended to insult the person who posted the video. All he said was that it was interesting and I am aware of that. My comments were pertaining to the comments within the video and images. I think it's interesting too and glad it was posted.
What's up with the claim, the moon is unlike any other satellite in our "universe"? Um, how do they know this? We haven't came any where near seeing all the moons in the universe.....
The stationary orbit implies what? That there are bases on the moon? That it is older than the Earth? I don't see the connection.
I have marveled over the visual size similarities of the Earth moon and sun. This has interested me since realizing it. It's connection with bases and other things discussed is another connection I don't get however.
As for speed etc. Gravity accounts for it if i remember correctly.
The title was, "NASA, never a straight answer". Some of the data they used NASA agrees with, if not came from NASA.
It shows no characteristics of other moons? Hardly. It orbits a planet and is made of rock and has craters. It has a gravitational pull. There's a few. Has NASA denied this? How is the ascertion that there is no similarities connected with their case anyway? That shows there is life on the moon, that it's older than Earth, or that there are bases? Hardly.
How do they know it's cities that were smudged unless they seen unsmudged images? If they have seen the images, where did they get them from?
Same with only one size being visible. This indicates it came from the Earth over being older or there being bases on it. Another connection I do not see.
After seeing the next images and then being asked if I'm still not convinced, was indication to me to stop viewing. I was hardly impressed with what they were impressed with, plus I was wondering, convinced of what? That it's a video with fuzzy logic?
I attended a conference where Jesse Marcel Jr. showed some of the best images that I've seen (better than the supposed experts in that field) that some think is evidence of bases etc. on the moon. This included the first photo shown. It wasn't airbrushed. He got it from NASA if I remember correctly. If there is foul play in smudging the images, why would I think they aren't doing it over NASA?
Images of "bases" are no more than anomalies at best in my view. Nothing detailed enough to say that I've seen. More blurry than the Patterson film. And that is without the airbrushing. They also look nothing like buildings. One could argue, that they're ET buildings and that they look that way on purpose! Ok, you got me. I can't prove that that isn't the case. However they've hardly proven their case. As much as some here do not like Occam's razor, I do and I'll use it here regardless of possible flames.
I'm open to the possibility of bases on the moon. I just haven't seen good photos yet.
None of what I said was intended to insult the person who posted the video. All he said was that it was interesting and I am aware of that. My comments were pertaining to the comments within the video and images. I think it's interesting too and glad it was posted.
Rick Deckard said:
What do you think of this idea . .. which I cooked up after a couple of beers and a viewing of the 'Saturn Hexagon' photo:
The Gas giants . .. specifically Saturn, are nothing more than manufactured storm-screens that surround ancient ET mega-complexes. The UFO's we see aren't travelling vast distances, they are leaving from and returning to the security of their artificial storm-screened 'planets'. We lack the equipment to sufficiently penetrate these gas-giant-mega-ET-cities to any degree, but when we finally do we'll find an enormous artifical alien city core. Then we will send them McDonald's and Starbucks.
Aha! Ponder that one! I feel a 800-book deal coming on.
-DBTrek
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
Any of you familiar with the "Ring Makers of Saturn" guy? He thinks the rings around Saturn is some form of et camouflage and/or exhaust.
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
DBTrek said:
Yes, his name is Dr. Bergrun. I first learned of it a little over 10 years ago I think. The guy has photos showing large cylindrical objects (1 and 2 miles long) in the rings in which he thinks is et craft/bases. Photos are very hard to come by. I've only seen a few in the decade that I've learned about it. I wasn't impressed with the images.
Here's the result of a search I did "Dr. Bergrun"
Dr. Bergrun - Google Search
B
bakunin
Guest
I like the mars face thing. It would be so cool if that were true. Who knows. Maybe there are cities on the moon or something from that alternative 3 thing. Maybe the NASA program is more advanced then we are led to believe. So, what does all of this mean. Beats the hell out of me. Maybe we are al being lied to by NASA and govermental organizations. I do think its rather odd we are the most intellignet life in the Universe. It can't be. We are still burning dinosaur fuel. Uranium is next so I hear.
B
bakunin
Guest
I like the mars face thing. It would be so cool if that were true. Who knows. Maybe there are cities on the moon or something from that alternative 3 thing. Maybe the NASA program is more advanced then we are led to believe. So, what does all of this mean. Beats the hell out of me. Maybe we are al being lied to by NASA and govermental organizations. I do think its rather odd we are the most intellignet life in the Universe. It can't be. We are still burning dinosaur fuel. Uranium is next so I hear.