• 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!

The Recent Lunar Roundtable

Free episodes:

Decker

Administrator
Staff member
I have been watching the various comments about the recent Lunar roundtable with David Hatcher Childress and myself that aired Sunday. After we finished the interview I had a feeling that this might be the general response, which was negative. You may recall a week or so ago I noted in a posted note I will be interested in the forum response.

< From August 20 in a post concerning Apollo 18>

"I will not say too much here prior to the show airing but I will say I was surprised at how the show went in several areas. You will hear me taking exception at some of this material that was presented, simply because I am interested in presenting as factual material as can be presented. I think it will be interesting to watch how this show will be discussed here on The Paracast, if for no other reason than the forum users here are, IMHO, some of the most astute in computer land."

When Gene and Chris mentioned doing this, Gene asked me to see if I could get someone to appear with me and I reached out to Jim Sylvan. I emailed him and then waited. He finally got back to me and I mentioned I wanted to speak to him about doing this. He never got back to me. Time went along then Gene and Chris contacted me and said they had arranged for Childress to appear.

Now, doing legit lunar research without all the bullshit associated with a lot of it, is hard. You must be involved in some in depth research, and a lot of it is technical. Like I have said numerous times, I got started with this back in the early 1990's and have worked on it ... off and on for many years since then.

I have not been in contact with Childress for many years, and even before did not have a lot of contact with him. He is often out in the field, traveling around to various countries and various sites, and some time ago I even reached out to Chris to tell David that I wanted to invite him on DMR, but the upshot is we did not connect. When we did the interview I was was put off when he began to reference the Living Moon/John Lear info and later the Fred Steckling stuff. I was totally aware, years ago, that this was bogus BS but hey, this is not my show ... I was a guest. When I am a guest I try to be polite and respectful, but even so, you heard me try to rail in Childress with some of that, IMHO, bogus crap. This was when I began to suspect that the show might fall flat.

I suppose the ultimate Lunar LTP radio show is still to be done, perhaps better luck next time.

Decker
 
I finally found the time to listen to the show today and I was very happy with it.
Yeah there was a little out the restuff, but it was very informative, lots of info to follow up on, and thought provoking. There are probably more skeptics on this site than most others, but at least it mostly keeps things honest.
I thought you guys did a great job!

Look forward to the next show.

exo
 
Can anyone post a link to some of those high resolution non-blurry photos they claim are out there ( real ones ) not photoshoped fakes? Also, check this picture out:


100316164950-large.jpg


The above picture is from a Russian lunar rover: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100316164950.htm

The problem with moon anomalies is that since we've been there ourselves in person and with automated or remote controlled machines, how do we know that the anomalies aren't from our own programs ... public or otherwise? Without some real clear pictures of the massive structures or machines, there is nothing to go on. We have astronauts telling us about having chased UFOs ... why wouldn't they tell us about aliens on the moon? It all reminds me of the same type of hype we hear from Hoagland ... it's fun to imagine and maybe there is something to it ... but we need more than what we have now to make a really convincing case.
 
how do we know that the anomalies aren't from our own programs

We don't, but we can guesstimate.

For example, they didn't have the Saturn ready while they were launching the lunar orbiter probes so if we see something that appears to have a mass greater than the lifting capabilities of the contemporary rockets, then we can suspect that those rockets didn't place that particular object. Now this discounts secret launching methods, but such secrets can be kept. It wasn't like the Soviet Union would go on Cronkite and whine if we launched a secret rocket.

As for pictures of these things, there are plenty of them - just check this forum. We have everything from lunar ufos to transcripts from the Apollo and Gemini missions wherein they discuss ufos.

But I know for certain that most people experience cognitive dissonance when they see a genuine ufo or an image of a genuine anomaly. Immediately the mind looks for other explanations, any of which is more acceptable than the truth; that there is something in a picture which you don't understand and won't ever understand. For this reason I provide plausible explanation for many of my anomalies. I invent some of them and many people believe them. They believe them because the invented explanations - however implausible - are preferable and seeming more probable than the explanation which would otherwise be used: that these things do exist and you have just seen one.

*As for the best anomalies, the one's we dream about and hope to see. I wouldn't count on it. I know most of the serious amateur selenographers who are active in North America and many of them are patriots - they won't say shit about what they find if they think we put it there (or didn't). As another example: We all like Don, but do you think if he found an American Facility on the moon and developed some idea of why it was there, that he'd actually tell us or show us pictures? Hell no, and I wouldn't expect him to. He wouldn't be able to tell us without telling our enemies.

This is fun to talk about online, but at another level there are real national security implications. You heard about the run around that Saccheri was given and all the restrictions that were imposed on him, and there's good reason for it.
 
Actually the first lunar rover landed in 1970 ... The Apollo Program was up to Apollo 13 by then.

That is one ugly machine! It looks like a rolling pressure cooker with a Maser mounted on top. Imagine strolling along and seeing that come over the hill at you! The conical shaped device on the right looks like some sort of reaming gear for Pete's sake! Hmm, now those rumors about aliens telling us not to come back make a little more sense.
 
Actually the first lunar rover landed in 1970 ... The Apollo Program was up to Apollo 13 by then.

Could you please expand upon where you think I'm wrong.

I agree with what you said so you have effectively confused me.

For example, they didn't have the Saturn ready while they were launching the lunar orbiter probes so if we see something that appears to have a mass greater than the lifting capabilities of the contemporary rockets, then we can suspect that those rockets didn't place that particular object


Do you need this sentence to be explained to you?

I shall do it anyways...

...You know that rover you posted - that doesn't need a Saturn five to get to the moon. An discounting the tracks, it wouldn't be distinguishable from a boulder with the tech onboard the oldlunar orbiter probes. But if that rover was 25 feet by 35 feet, well then you'd probably need a heavy lift rocket to get it there. And if you found that giant rover in a picture from 1968, well we didn't have Saturns then so they had to use some other system to emplace it. The size of an object can help us rule some things out, or in. That's what I'm saying.

I hope that works.
 
i see boot tracks. i see no tire tracks. i am using CS4 and a 22 inch LaCie display.
 
i see boot tracks. i see no tire tracks. i am using CS4 and a 22 inch LaCie display.

What are you implying? That we didn't go?

I argue both sides, but I wouldn't use that image as evidence we didn't go. Check the images from that mission, you'll see tire tracks on plenty of them. I doubt they'd screw that up if they faked it.
 
i did not say that we didnt go. why do people like to put words into my mouth?

this image clearly shows boot tracks on both sides of the rover and tire tracks in the background but no tire tracks driving up to that parking spot.
 
IMO we probably went to the moon but in order to capture public support for future missions NASA decided to stage or recreate MANY photos that were passed off as real.
 
Back
Top