-
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!
DavidRavenMoon
anonymous anomalous
Dark? It's only dark on the far side of the moon when it's light on the earth facing side. There is no dark side of the moon. It's just that the moon rotates so that only one side faces earth.
owlman
Paranormal Maven
No-one ever asks about the 3rd mofo on the Moon , Michael Collins who did 2 orbits over the lunar surface while Neil and Buzz danced around looking at lights in craters etc..
Here's a photo showing the three astronauts last year with President Obmama : Wikimedia Error
Note Armstrong's expensive suit and shoes compared to Buzz's clapped out old slippers. Now there's a conspiracy for ya !
Here's a photo showing the three astronauts last year with President Obmama : Wikimedia Error
Note Armstrong's expensive suit and shoes compared to Buzz's clapped out old slippers. Now there's a conspiracy for ya !
DavidRavenMoon
anonymous anomalous
Let's put it this way: Did you notice that David was silent during a portion of the show?
Oh yeah. David did a great job of not jumping all over the guy.. I'm not sure I could have done that! Yeah, Fox tabloid news is the same as other news right? Fox has been shown to blatantly make up stories. The NY Post isn't any better. They have printed bogus stuff.
My first reaction hearing his voice was "wow, they got Larry Fine on the show, and I thought he was dead!"
I have to say that I was able to get past his personality and I felt a lot of the information was very interesting.
Gene, you asked why we didn't go back to the moon to check this stuff out.. well we are going back. And that in itself is telling I think. If you look at the whole history of us and the moon, you see that astronomers have seen odd things for a long time, about 1,000 years ... the lunar transient phenomenon. So then you see that we eventually sent orbiters to take photos. I'm sure they had specific areas in mind. Then we sent unmanned landers to take closer photos, once again, of certain places. Then we sent people to look around. Ever wonder why they picked the locations they did for the lunar landers? I'm sure it was areas with anomalies. For example, Apollo 12 landed very close to Luna 5, Surveyor 3, and Ranger 7 in the Ocean of Storms. So this was a "known" area. Why send three unmanned landers to the same area?
Then you look at how the Apollo missions were cut short. There is that quote attributed to Armstrong that we were "warned off" from going back. He never denied saying that. There was that odd incident with the lunar rover where they said something kept passing over head and dropping things on them, which resulted in them loosing a fender. They had to improvise one from a couple of laminated maps. Now they say Young bumped into the fender, making it fall off, but that wasn't what was reported at the time. I was a huge fan of the space program and watched as much of it as I could. I was probably one of the few people up late watching the live broadcasts of them bouncing around on the moon.
There was also the "moon domes" incident when they had the first color camera on the Apollo 12 mission. Wikipedia writes:
It would interesting to see if the video has been archived. At the time they panned the camera around and apparently captured some "moon domes" in the background. You could clearly hear mission control say "burn the camera", and then it was swung around and pointed at the sun and shut off! At the time even the news anchors commented on it, thinking it was odd.
Back during this time a friend of mine had an uncle that worked for Bendix, and they did contract work for NASA. He used to bring his nephew issues of a newsletter called "NASA Facts". I distinctly remember we had one that was marked "Top Secret" on the front! We thought that was odd and of course exciting. I must have been about 13 at the time. In this issue they talked about "moon domes". Apparently they were smooth looking hill like objects that would move around... so they would be there when the astronauts went to sleep, and then they would either have moved or be gone when they woke up, etc.
Other odd things is the fact that we placed a seismograph on the moon. They discovered moonquakes with it, but the moon was always thought to have no activity. So what was it put there for? To count the number and size of meteor strikes? Could be if they want to see if that accounts for the LTPs. And back then they started crashing things on the moon, like the LM's accent module. I guess that would set off the seismograph.
So now after all these years we are sending more orbiters to take higher resolution photos. This gets back to the discussion on us not having a good way to look at the moon. Now we can see the footprints left by the astronauts! Think of what kind of things they can see.
Now if we have been there already, and brought back a bunch of rocks, and then decided to end the mission and not go back.. why go back now? Then after NASA continued to have their budget cut, George W Bush decided to resume manned missions by 2020.
So the question is why are we going back? Even Buzz Aldrin voiced criticism about it, saying it was "more like reaching for past glory than striving for new triumphs".
It seems that they are using the LRO to scope out anomalies so we can go back and get a better look with humans.
I'm not making a conspiracy out of it, but I think it's probable that we have seen unusual structures on the moon that haven't been made public. And for some reason we seem to be interested again in going and taking a look.
Thank you, but for some reason that website says the book is "no longer available".
P
pixelsmith
Guest
i wonder why an e-book would no longer be available?
Schuyler
Misanthrope
My take on it when I first heard it was that we were going back because several other nations announced they were going to go: Japan, China, and India. Kind of a 'We can still do it' routine.
Roro
aka Arlen Royal Woods
We are a long way from getting back on the moon. The program that is supposedly meant to get us there is also meant to develop a new vehicle for getting humans into space, period. When the Space Shuttle program is shut down the US wont have any way of getting humans into space, not even to the ISS. Only Russia will have vehicles capable of carrying humans to the ISS. The Constellation program is underfunded to the point where it will not reach the Bush goals. In my opinion the government will fund the program to the point that it gets us back into orbit but not enough to get us back to the moon or beyond. If there are reasons we stopped visiting the moon, other than the publicly stated reasons, Bush was probably ignorant of them and his handlers let him set goals for space that we have no intention of fulfilling. Again, just my opinion.
Someone has probably already mentioned this, but isn't it weird that the navy was behind the clemintine mission. The navy has a lot of images up on the web now but they have had plenty of time to sanitize them if there really is anything to hide.
jkoci
Watcher of the Skies
My thoughts exactly. Especially China. Going back has more to do with the politics of a second space race.
Ezechiel
Paranormal Adept
IMHO, a major motivator will be H3 (Helium 3) to fuel fusion reactors (ITER)... if they finally work.
Exploration comes when you are getting great returns on your investments (ROI) and you have some spare change to gamble (Cortez in the americas lol).
Like you said, this is now relevant to China or maybe India. I can't see where there is a valid ROI in american ventures in Afghanistan or Iraq. Stupid saga was triggered by intolerance (Bin Laden) towards american military installations in UAE protecting oil interests.
AdamI
Skilled Investigator
I sure hope this "smoking gun evidence" isn't more evidence of extraterrestrial JPEG compression artifacts...
If the images have ever been compressed, you can't magnify them... the only thing of value you could see on compressed images would be something very large... much larger than the DCT block size.
If the images have ever been compressed, you can't magnify them... the only thing of value you could see on compressed images would be something very large... much larger than the DCT block size.
cottonzway
I was saying boo-urns
I just got done listening to the episode.
Usually David takes shit for jumping on guests or whatever, but Robert Kiviat came off as a total jackass who seemed to want to fight with David more then anything. I am shocked that there was not more of a fight out of this as Kiviat was rude as hell. His bootlicking of Rupert Murdoch was shameful and embarrassing. Maybe he is a better guy then this and had a bad day. He came off as a blowhard on this show though IMO.
Usually David takes shit for jumping on guests or whatever, but Robert Kiviat came off as a total jackass who seemed to want to fight with David more then anything. I am shocked that there was not more of a fight out of this as Kiviat was rude as hell. His bootlicking of Rupert Murdoch was shameful and embarrassing. Maybe he is a better guy then this and had a bad day. He came off as a blowhard on this show though IMO.
mattdeacon
Skilled Investigator
Monolith.
Sounded like Bill Birnes too.
Sounded like Bill Birnes too.
kipspritely
Skilled Investigator
That Buzz Aldrin comment was weird as hell. I would love Buzz on this show.
aNorthernSoul
Professional Breather
I second that!
Rocketsauce
Haagen-Dazs Addict
I have nothing new to add.
That producer guy came off like a smug, blow-hard, type A, defensive, Fox lackey. I can understand how someone becomes a 'company' man and wants to justify the nature of their work. But to be proud of a show like 'A Current Affair'? Really? That's a trend to be proud of? Certainly the NYT and other publications that follow a higher standard than tabloids will feature stories/topics that are also featured in tabloids/Fox News. But what does that prove? Just because Afred Webre covers a story like 911 on his website doesn't make his writing more credible than a beat writer for the New York times who covers the same subject.
Certainly you can argue that the media's integrity and values have declined in response to the demand for tabloid stuff, but that doesn't take away from the fact that certain publications are consistently more reliable than others. Although the Enquirer has broken some big gossip stories lately (John Edwards/Tiger Woods), I'm certainly not going to read the Enquirer's analysis of things that actually matter, like the latest health care bill.
If anything, I would openly admit that because Fox is not highly regarded outside of certain circles
they have the ability to go after these types of stories and do some ground breaking stuff others are afraid of doing including the show on the alien autopsy for better or worse. This is the strength and weakness of fox. They don't care about living up to high journalistic standards so they've made a business decision to appeal to certain niche, which is really ironic because their right wing base is probably the first group that would complain about Fox's ground breaking shows like the Simpsons, Married with Children, stuff on UFO's.
Anywho, the stuff on the moon is interesting, I hope he gets his show produced and this generates more interest on the topic which will hopefully lead to some answers. Checking out stuff on the moon and getting an explanation is a lot more likely than pinning down any of the UFO stuff.
There is no doubt that most of us would have hung up (as David probably did) on this dude, but perhaps if there were more people like him who were willing to take on this subject and take risks in mainstream news organizations, there would be more 'serious' UFO coverage in the mainstream media. At the same time, there would probably also be a lot more Lindsey Lohan coverage too Pick your poison!
That producer guy came off like a smug, blow-hard, type A, defensive, Fox lackey. I can understand how someone becomes a 'company' man and wants to justify the nature of their work. But to be proud of a show like 'A Current Affair'? Really? That's a trend to be proud of? Certainly the NYT and other publications that follow a higher standard than tabloids will feature stories/topics that are also featured in tabloids/Fox News. But what does that prove? Just because Afred Webre covers a story like 911 on his website doesn't make his writing more credible than a beat writer for the New York times who covers the same subject.
Certainly you can argue that the media's integrity and values have declined in response to the demand for tabloid stuff, but that doesn't take away from the fact that certain publications are consistently more reliable than others. Although the Enquirer has broken some big gossip stories lately (John Edwards/Tiger Woods), I'm certainly not going to read the Enquirer's analysis of things that actually matter, like the latest health care bill.
If anything, I would openly admit that because Fox is not highly regarded outside of certain circles
they have the ability to go after these types of stories and do some ground breaking stuff others are afraid of doing including the show on the alien autopsy for better or worse. This is the strength and weakness of fox. They don't care about living up to high journalistic standards so they've made a business decision to appeal to certain niche, which is really ironic because their right wing base is probably the first group that would complain about Fox's ground breaking shows like the Simpsons, Married with Children, stuff on UFO's. Anywho, the stuff on the moon is interesting, I hope he gets his show produced and this generates more interest on the topic which will hopefully lead to some answers. Checking out stuff on the moon and getting an explanation is a lot more likely than pinning down any of the UFO stuff.
There is no doubt that most of us would have hung up (as David probably did) on this dude, but perhaps if there were more people like him who were willing to take on this subject and take risks in mainstream news organizations, there would be more 'serious' UFO coverage in the mainstream media. At the same time, there would probably also be a lot more Lindsey Lohan coverage too
Pick your poison!