-
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!
Alien Moon Base Captured By Chang'e-2 Orbiter 2012
- Thread starter mike
- Start date
Free episodes:
I just don't think any large countries government will admit to any such thing. I live in hope however!
Does anyone have any thoughts on the fake moon photos? I specifically mean photos because the evidence says man did go to the moon. The evidence that virtually all photos from Apollo 11 and some others were faked. There is no other explanation for crosshairs going behind objects and shadows that clearly show more than one light source. In addition to all that, if that were not enough to call 'fake' then there is clearly evidence that areas of the photos that should have been in complete darkness were anything but!
If man did go to the moon, then the question becomes 'why fake photos that could have been taken anyway?'
I think it could be that either there were things NASA was worried about having to show and they played it safe. It could be that due to restrictions on what input the astronauts could have on the taking of the photos, NASA thought that they could not spend the money on going to the moon and not have some excellent photos for posterity.
Another thing that really bothers me about Apollo 11 is that there is a sequence of film showing the astronauts on the way to the moon, with them showing the earth framed nicely in one of their viewing windows. Except, that by mistake, the film shows the fact that it was not the planet earth they were looking at but a colour transparency, held against the window. Why?
Because all the technology used to go to the moon is now in the public domain and quite antiquated by today's standards, it strikes me as very strange that NASA still remains cagey about certain aspects of the logistics of getting to the moon.
I think one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that man did go to the moon, is the fact that there were several moon missions. If they were going to fake going to the moon, there would be no point in faking it again and again and again! Also, many different independant labs and people were gifted pieces of moon rock, which to a geologist plainly shows it is not terrestrial. Also, I believe the equipment left on the surface has been photographed by the recent missions mapping the lunar surface.
But what is going on with the photos and why is Neil Armstrong so private? I would have thought that any astronaut willing to volunteer to enter the space program and go to the moon would have been made to agree to do countless interviews and public appearances over the following decades.
I don't think that would have been asking too much - it is a unique priviledge to be the first human to set foot on another heavenly body. No way should anyone who accepted that honour should have beeen allowed to shy away from the limelight pretty much all the time since his return.
Could it be that Neil Armstrong finds it difficult to live with some aspect of the mission? Something so secret that it eats away at any man forced to keep it secret in perpetuity?
Anyone who has yet to read George Leonards 'There is somebody else on our Moon' should make an effort to do so. I was lucky enough to pick up a paperback copy for pennies from a charity shop. The problem being the size and resolution of the pictures in the book. However, a few of the pics are so stand-out weird it is still possible to come away with the strong impression there is evidence of artificiality. Don Ecker has posted some ok quality copies of some of those photos elsewhere in the forums.
There can be no question that Japan and China are aware of these reports and they must have photographed these areas. I believe somewhere in a vault or three somewhere in the world there there are high-resolution photos of areas of interest on the lunar surface. These photos would reveal whether or not there are any artificial structures on the moon.
Whatever anyone things of Richard Hoagland, there can be no question that he has helped in some very good research of the Cydonian region of Mars. Of course, some people do not believe any of the structures on Mars are artificial, some believe many are and some people are undecided. I am in the latter category but probably sway more to thinking there are some artificial structures there.
What I am most interested in is Hoagland's use of software that looks at a digital image of a landscape and gives a mathematical probability as to whether any region shows evidence of not being natural, i.e artificial. The military uses these programs to analyse satellite imagery to tell whether there are man-made objects in the picture.
When this program was ran on pictures of Cydonia, there were several structures that were given very high probability of being artificial and the object that was recognised by the software as being most likely artificial was indeed the 'face'. I find that absolutely stunning.
I would be interested to see results of this software being run on images of certain areas of the lunar surface although I imagine the resolution required would be far in excess of that present in the photos in George Leonards book.
I urge anyone who has not yet seen some of these lunar photos to seek out the one that contains something that looks like a giant cog. Even at low resolution, once the eye fixes on this object, it is extremely hard to believe that the object is some natural rock formation.
There have been episodes of the Paracast covering Lunar anomalies and I reckon due to the proximity of the moon, it's role in our lives and the implications of there actually being anything artificial up there, the moon probably warrants another show, possibly if there is any more recent photographic evidence to consider?
Does anyone have any thoughts on the fake moon photos? I specifically mean photos because the evidence says man did go to the moon. The evidence that virtually all photos from Apollo 11 and some others were faked. There is no other explanation for crosshairs going behind objects and shadows that clearly show more than one light source. In addition to all that, if that were not enough to call 'fake' then there is clearly evidence that areas of the photos that should have been in complete darkness were anything but!
If man did go to the moon, then the question becomes 'why fake photos that could have been taken anyway?'
I think it could be that either there were things NASA was worried about having to show and they played it safe. It could be that due to restrictions on what input the astronauts could have on the taking of the photos, NASA thought that they could not spend the money on going to the moon and not have some excellent photos for posterity.
Another thing that really bothers me about Apollo 11 is that there is a sequence of film showing the astronauts on the way to the moon, with them showing the earth framed nicely in one of their viewing windows. Except, that by mistake, the film shows the fact that it was not the planet earth they were looking at but a colour transparency, held against the window. Why?
Because all the technology used to go to the moon is now in the public domain and quite antiquated by today's standards, it strikes me as very strange that NASA still remains cagey about certain aspects of the logistics of getting to the moon.
I think one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that man did go to the moon, is the fact that there were several moon missions. If they were going to fake going to the moon, there would be no point in faking it again and again and again! Also, many different independant labs and people were gifted pieces of moon rock, which to a geologist plainly shows it is not terrestrial. Also, I believe the equipment left on the surface has been photographed by the recent missions mapping the lunar surface.
But what is going on with the photos and why is Neil Armstrong so private? I would have thought that any astronaut willing to volunteer to enter the space program and go to the moon would have been made to agree to do countless interviews and public appearances over the following decades.
I don't think that would have been asking too much - it is a unique priviledge to be the first human to set foot on another heavenly body. No way should anyone who accepted that honour should have beeen allowed to shy away from the limelight pretty much all the time since his return.
Could it be that Neil Armstrong finds it difficult to live with some aspect of the mission? Something so secret that it eats away at any man forced to keep it secret in perpetuity?
Anyone who has yet to read George Leonards 'There is somebody else on our Moon' should make an effort to do so. I was lucky enough to pick up a paperback copy for pennies from a charity shop. The problem being the size and resolution of the pictures in the book. However, a few of the pics are so stand-out weird it is still possible to come away with the strong impression there is evidence of artificiality. Don Ecker has posted some ok quality copies of some of those photos elsewhere in the forums.
There can be no question that Japan and China are aware of these reports and they must have photographed these areas. I believe somewhere in a vault or three somewhere in the world there there are high-resolution photos of areas of interest on the lunar surface. These photos would reveal whether or not there are any artificial structures on the moon.
Whatever anyone things of Richard Hoagland, there can be no question that he has helped in some very good research of the Cydonian region of Mars. Of course, some people do not believe any of the structures on Mars are artificial, some believe many are and some people are undecided. I am in the latter category but probably sway more to thinking there are some artificial structures there.
What I am most interested in is Hoagland's use of software that looks at a digital image of a landscape and gives a mathematical probability as to whether any region shows evidence of not being natural, i.e artificial. The military uses these programs to analyse satellite imagery to tell whether there are man-made objects in the picture.
When this program was ran on pictures of Cydonia, there were several structures that were given very high probability of being artificial and the object that was recognised by the software as being most likely artificial was indeed the 'face'. I find that absolutely stunning.
I would be interested to see results of this software being run on images of certain areas of the lunar surface although I imagine the resolution required would be far in excess of that present in the photos in George Leonards book.
I urge anyone who has not yet seen some of these lunar photos to seek out the one that contains something that looks like a giant cog. Even at low resolution, once the eye fixes on this object, it is extremely hard to believe that the object is some natural rock formation.
There have been episodes of the Paracast covering Lunar anomalies and I reckon due to the proximity of the moon, it's role in our lives and the implications of there actually being anything artificial up there, the moon probably warrants another show, possibly if there is any more recent photographic evidence to consider?
P
pixelsmith
Guest
oh boy... here we go again. my guess is the photos they tried to take were crap so they faked a bunch of photos to show the public. If you look hard enough you can find the film and photography set they used complete with cranes, moon rocks, fake lander module, etc...
Indeed - but they must have known sharp-eyed people would notice? And now, years later, why not admit it? People would understand that they were doing something for the first time etc and it was a voyage of discovery in technology as much as distance.
Today they still claim the photos are genuine - this makes them look like they have something to hide, even if they dont!
All it does it make people distrust NASA.
Today they still claim the photos are genuine - this makes them look like they have something to hide, even if they dont!
All it does it make people distrust NASA.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
here is part of the set.
!
Yes, I've seen it before thanks. They used it to simulate the lander skimming the surface I think.
Anyway, as far as I know, NASA still claims all released photos of Apollo missions were genuine.
As this is blatantly a lie, it does their credibility no good.
What about the woman who claims she had to hide photographic evidence of various things from NASA lunar images? I must look her up. No idea if she is credible but my point is just that NASA could do itself a favour and clear up any remaining doubt over the lunar missions by coming clean on the parts they faked for whatever reason.
Anyway, as far as I know, NASA still claims all released photos of Apollo missions were genuine.
As this is blatantly a lie, it does their credibility no good.
What about the woman who claims she had to hide photographic evidence of various things from NASA lunar images? I must look her up. No idea if she is credible but my point is just that NASA could do itself a favour and clear up any remaining doubt over the lunar missions by coming clean on the parts they faked for whatever reason.
GeoShift
Paranormal Maven
Thanks for the great posts guys. I learn something new everyday at the Paracast forum. (insert twilight zone music here) yes I think we need another moon anomaly show. Look, I think there's more going on up there than there letting us on to. At any rate I always find the moon subject very interesting. Keep on truckin 
P
pixelsmith
Guest
this one shows how amazing the sun was in lighting the moon for the astronots.
SPOTLIGHTS ON THE MOON ? Video
SPOTLIGHTS ON THE MOON ? Video
P
pixelsmith
Guest
the audio in this video is pretty funny, the video itself is very interesting.
we are on the fucking moon!
class.
class.
Xylo
Paranormal Adept
OMG Pixel I was eating supper as I watched and listened to that vid. I nearly choked myself to death laughing! Should have put a NSFWWE (Not safe for watching while eating) disclaimer on that.
ETA: didn't mean to hijack this thread. In regards to the OP, I don't know what that is in the video but it does look like some sort of an abandoned structure. There are a few things that intrigue me...the "wall" and the "patio" type structure on the far right, as well as the cylinder.
However, I don't really know where those pics came from, and it would probably be better to wait until China actually releases some of their footage. IF in fact this footage was leaked from a Chinese source, you can rest assured that it has gotten back to the Chinese Space agency and government. So that source won't be "leaking" anything anymore.
ETA: didn't mean to hijack this thread. In regards to the OP, I don't know what that is in the video but it does look like some sort of an abandoned structure. There are a few things that intrigue me...the "wall" and the "patio" type structure on the far right, as well as the cylinder.
However, I don't really know where those pics came from, and it would probably be better to wait until China actually releases some of their footage. IF in fact this footage was leaked from a Chinese source, you can rest assured that it has gotten back to the Chinese Space agency and government. So that source won't be "leaking" anything anymore.
wwkirk
Paranormal Adept
I agree with Mike and others that we did indeed reach the moon. As for the ruins, they may be signs of an extraterrestrial presence long ago. I don't think they are there now, in this dimension anyway. One author, Richard L. Thompson, suggests there may be a higher dimensional civilization there.
Polterwurst
Paranormal Adept
Well, quite probably a hoax like many before, but why didn't they put some buildings in that looked more obviously artifical? Seems to me they wanted something like the "steps" or "terraces" off the coast of Japan (which look like ruins but are natural). These hoaxers are a nifty bunch, but I don't really take my hat of to them...
As for the audio of Karl Wolff, IMO he's telling the truth, but I'm wondering if he's maybe just been had by that other AFC. He just looks the type some people would try to wind up. Maybe that guy had some manipulated photos on him just in case.
@pixelsmith: so that's how it really went down. Jesus H Christ in a chicken basket!
As for the audio of Karl Wolff, IMO he's telling the truth, but I'm wondering if he's maybe just been had by that other AFC. He just looks the type some people would try to wind up. Maybe that guy had some manipulated photos on him just in case.
@pixelsmith: so that's how it really went down. Jesus H Christ in a chicken basket!
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
Moon base with antenna and connected domes or a pile of rocks?
stonehart
Paranormal Adept
Moon base with antenna and connected domes or a pile of rocks?
Until we know otherwise logic would say it is a pile of rocks. The problem with looking at fuzzy shots of the Moon and Mars for that matter is as we all know the mind fills in the blanks.
I am not saying there is nothing odd going on up there on the moon as I think we have enough evidence to say its worth studying with some very odd photos of objects that look like the have been moving on the surface etc.
On the argument of did we go to the moon... YES, but did NASA fake some photos? Yeah I am sure they did for other than science the moon shots were all about propaganda, it was called the space race for a reason
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Uh ... ya you're right ... Eraser time ... Done.
But I do find the idea of moon artifacts interesting. You hear these rumors about them having these really clear pictures, but for some reason all the public ever gets are these fuzzy ones. I mean we've landed on the freaking thing and we've got an orbiting space telescope and all we get are these crappy grayscale low resolution trashy photos ... why?