• 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!

Incredible New Moon Photo

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

trainedobserver said:
They aren't too uncommon. I think they are formed when a some body that has broken up somewhere along the way impacts the moon. Think about Shoemaker Levy on a smaller scale. The moon went through a period of terrifically frequent impacts. Much has been covered up by the lava flows that form the moon's seas.
Click to expand...


Possibly Trained, however the ones I've had pointed out always seem to be identical in size and in shape. Anything hitting the moon is unlikely to cause so many identical craters - even if some objects do split up on the way. Any such objects would have to hit straight on, otherwise the craters would not be circular, also objects splitting in two would have to split into two even-sized pieces to make two craters of the same size surely?

These craters do not show anything paranormal or even artificial maybe but they are surely interesting and as far as I've read in the literature they are still quite a mystery?
 
trainedobserver said:
I think you are talking apples and oranges there.

The fact that the left wall of thing in Hoagland's photo is not in shadow is a dead giveaway that the image has been greatly manipulated. If the claim is some software was applied to the photo bring this out then you have to ask what software package, where the copy they were working from originated (print or from the NASA website), and very importantly, what were the settings and steps used to bring this out of the photo?

I am going with it being actually drawn in and highlighted. Perhaps Lance is correct after all. I think the general shape of the top of the structure was probably spotted by applying filters thereby distorting the image to the point someone's apophenia kicked in and they just outlined it for us to see.
Click to expand...



I think you misunderstood me a little Trained. It looks for sure that this has been drawn in and if you look at the original closely, you can see what becomes the top of the 'ziggurat' and it does seem that someone has taken something present in the image and made it into the pic hoagland claims shows the pyramid.

But on the subject of shading - yes indeed it is a giveaway on the fake pic but my point was that this guy Robbins was saying for all the reasons we know already that things in shadow in the moon should be black cos there is a single light source and very little scattering.

But I've heard it argued that the Apollo surface pics were indeed taken on the moon with the Haselblad so why are there so many pics with stuff that has to be in shadow standing right out clear as day with all the colour?

I may have misunderstood arguments in favour of no fake Apollo phots?
 
people will say that the shadows are lit up because of the highly reflective moon surface. i say bullshit and that the actual photos they took were dark, ill composed and not suitable for public consumption.
 
At the first of this video, Hoagland claims to not know the who, when, how of the taking of the photograph. Then he posts the identity of the original photo on the Coast to Coast website.

Also, this turns out to be another case where Richard Hoagland takes someone else's work (an old hoax) and either claims it as his own or appears ignorant of their true origins.

Here is Robbin's video.
 
Lol, isn't Hoagland Coast to Coast's science adviser or something like that? Pretty hilarious considering the man doesn't have a scientific degree of any kind. I wonder if Coast will wise up and boot him after this little fiasco....
 
My major gripe with Hoagland is all this 'hyperdimensional physics' stuff. Funny, I studied physics and I never was taught it?
And where is Hoagland supposed to have learned all this?

I must say that I don't think every single thing he has done has been bad or made up. Like some others in the ufo field though I think he may be like someone who has had one sighting and then makes up subsequent ones to continue to revel in the glory?
 
this is a copy of an email I sent to snorry please write him and let him know of this fraud!


Dear george; the photo of a pyrimid on the moon is a fake. the object was added later by photo shop many sites on the internet have already shown it to be fake. I will ask you google this since I do not know if your filters will allow links. Hogland moon photo fake. please check this out asap george your listeners deserve the truth.
Bob Watson
 
goggsmackay said:
I think you misunderstood me a little Trained. ...
But I've heard it argued that the Apollo surface pics were indeed taken on the moon with the Haselblad so why are there so many pics with stuff that has to be in shadow standing right out clear as day with all the colour?

I may have misunderstood arguments in favour of no fake Apollo phots?
Click to expand...

That is why I say it is apples and oranges. We are talking a photo with only so much information in it. That is to say that shadow has no hidden depths in the photograph itself. Also, it was taken from a couple of hundred miles away. The ones taken by the astronauts themselves were under different lighting and exposure conditions. Looking at one of those photos there is depth to the shadow in the photo because the information is there in the photo. Am I making sense?
 
trainedobserver said:
That is why I say it is apples and oranges. We are talking a photo with only so much information in it. That is to say that shadow has no hidden depths in the photograph itself. Also, it was taken from a couple of hundred miles away. The ones taken by the astronauts themselves were under different lighting and exposure conditions. Looking at one of those photos there is depth to the shadow in the photo because the information is there in the photo. Am I making sense?
Click to expand...

Yes, totally. I mean forget everything about the Hoagland business for now. One blog I read revealing the hoax made a big point about how things should be in shadow or not but I think these same people would be of the opinion there was no trickery in Apollo. They cant have it both ways.
I totally get how a moon phot from orbit is different than a close-up on the surface, my point is that the same argument, correctly used by these guys exposing the hoax should hold for the pics from Apollo.
 
I don't know, if there's enough of an outcry from the public about it, he'll at least address it on the show. Don't want to lose face with the public after all. I'm not going to bother to write in because I can't even remember the last time I listened to Coast to Coast, but if enough people do, Hoagie may find himself without his advisory position on Coast to Coast. Which means no more getting on the air and begging for listeners to send him money to study torsion fields and hyperdimensional physics!
 
goggsmackay said:
I totally get how a moon phot from orbit is different than a close-up on the surface, my point is that the same argument, correctly used by these guys exposing the hoax should hold for the pics from Apollo.
Click to expand...

I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I think the absolute shadow thing doesn't to the landing photos because of the range and conditions under which they were taken.

These guys were trained to use the cameras strapped to their chests like that. They didn't send those guys up there "hoping" they would get some good shots, they trained them. Are there some Apollo landing shots that look hinky? Yeah, but what purpose were those photos created to fulfill? Scientific evidence or public relations? The difference between the two might be at the heart of some of the questions surrounding some photos. I don't know for certain.
 
The photo that Mike Bara is claiming is his came from someone called kksamurai who apparently made several hoax photos in the 90s.

Pyrami2.gif


Pyrami3.jpg


crater-face.gif
 
trainedobserver said:
I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I think the absolute shadow thing doesn't to the landing photos because of the range and conditions under which they were taken.

These guys were trained to use the cameras strapped to their chests like that. They didn't send those guys up there "hoping" they would get some good shots, they trained them. Are there some Apollo landing shots that look hinky? Yeah, but what purpose were those photos created to fulfill? Scientific evidence or public relations? The difference between the two might be at the heart of some of the questions surrounding some photos. I don't know for certain.
Click to expand...
As a photographer I would tend to disagree about them being trained well enough to shoot from the chest and compose great photos. I do not say we didnt go to the moon. I do say many photos were faked and probably for public relations/funding reasons.
 
pixelsmith said:
As a photographer I would tend to disagree about them being trained well enough to shoot from the chest and compose great photos. I do not say we didnt go to the moon. I do say many photos were faked and probably for public relations/funding reasons.
Click to expand...

Well, the photo that kksamuari boogered up with a ziggurat was originally taken by an Apollo astronaut from orbit. So, no chest mounted camera problems there.
 
What I don't understand is why hasn't anyone else gone to the moon since the last time we supposedly landed there. Billions were spent to supposedly go to the moon in the past so it's to expensive for any other nation to go, or for us to go back? It's just not possible given the myriad of logistical problems to carry it out?
 
Back
Top