Video: Moon mines, piramids and cities by David Hatcher Childress

[Anaximander]

Hey Folks,

I know after the latest Paracast moon show many of you were left with a bad taste in the mouth and a high-pitched ringing the ears..... so I've decided to give you the tools to prolong your suffering.

The following is a video by our favourite Childress - David Hatcher. In this delightfully entertaining hour-long video he shows pictures and drawing and talks about lunar anomalies. It really is entertaining and he does drop alot of crater names and places which is good, as it allows us to check those places out with the modern technology and access to images that Childress didn't have when he made this video.

P.S. His lunar anomaly work isn't up to my standards but it is worth watching nonetheless. He uses some good material that many of you probably won't have seen before, such as sketches made by astronomers before the space era and the theories they had about what they were seeing.

 

[trainedobserver]

Listening to the Dark Matters episode with Alan Strum, Strum mentions his "videos" on youTube. I haven't been able to locate any of the Strum produced lunar anomaly videos myself. Does anyone remember seeing those? Does anyone have them saved off somewhere?

 

[bbridges]

Again, NASA has the photos-why haven't they released them? p.s., Its pYramids, says the high school teacher.

 

[Anaximander]

I was just using the title that came with it, misspellings and all.

It's the hip cool thing to do. It's 'in'.

 

[Facius_Cardan]

Placing such reliability on descriptions of lunar surface features made by astronomers in the early 20th century is ludicrous at least. That was a time when canals were seen on Mars surface, not because the observers were liars, but because the poor instruments they had (compared to what we have now, of course) and the characteristics of the human eye play a lot of tricks. Add to that the Earth atmosphere factor and you have the perfect conditions for misindentifications.
Also, NASA isn't the only agency that has access to lunar photographs and probes. The russian, european and chinese space agencies would have also seen the same anomalous features if they were really there.

 

[bbridges]

Then I guess we are just a bunch of ludicrous conspiracy nuts with nothing better to do' My mistake.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Not all can be learned in a book?

 

[bbridges]

Well then, it explains why I'm just a high school teacher.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

High School teacher are very important as any other qualification, which has come from of learning. However, we learn from life experince such as emotions of happyness, trauma of loss and living our lives everyday. What meant to say is not everything is kept in a book

 

[Anaximander]

Placing such reliability on descriptions of lunar surface features made by astronomers in the early 20th century is ludicrous at least.

You ought to tell that to NASA and get them to stop using old observations. At least tell 'em how ludicrous it was to compile all those old catalogues of observations. Write your congressperson.

Also, NASA isn't the only agency that has access to lunar photographs and probes. The russian, european and chinese space agencies would have also seen the same anomalous features if they were really there.

And?

Is this one of "x doesn't exist but if it did it would conform to my mental version of it, but it doesn't so therefore x doesn't exist" type of deals?

Let me guess:

You are going to say the russians/chinese/japanese would have have told the world about lunar anomalies but since they didn't there are no lunar anomalies.

Right?

 

[Facius_Cardan]

What I'm trying to say is that to convince me that something so outstanding as artificial structures built on the moon actually exist, I'll need much more than what has been shown by its proponents until now. Sure anyone has the right to speculate or even imagine such possibilities, but that stays in the realm of unsupported claims. My "version" of facts gets changed when the FACTS also change, but don't expect me to stay behind theories that are based on feeble evidence often put forth by people of dubious objectivity and scientific rigour.

 

[Anaximander]

....but don't expect me to stay behind theories that are based on feeble evidence often put forth by people of dubious objectivity and scientific rigour.

Hey, are you saying Childress isn't the world-class researcher he appears to be?

 

[Facius_Cardan]

Hey, are you saying Childress isn't the world-class researcher he appears to be?

Sincerely? I don't think he is.

 

[trainedobserver]

What I'm trying to say is that to convince me that something so outstanding as artificial structures built on the moon actually exist, I'll need much more than what has been shown by its proponents until now. Sure anyone has the right to speculate or even imagine such possibilities, but that stays in the realm of unsupported claims. My "version" of facts gets changed when the FACTS also change, but don't expect me to stay behind theories that are based on feeble evidence often put forth by people of dubious objectivity and scientific rigour.

That people have seen anomalous things on the moon in both photographs and telescopes seems inarguable. Are these objects some combination of natural formations, artifacts created in the photographic or print making process or evidence of artificial structures on the moon? My jury is still out.

I do have to agree that hearing someone recite every bizarre moon conspiracy known to man with little or no distinction between the absurd and the plausible to be pretty off putting.

There is a way to approach this without drinking the Kool-Aid and not everyone that thinks there might be something to this has a purple mustache

 

[Jabbermocky]

... but don't expect me to stay behind theories that are based on feeble evidence often put forth by people of dubious objectivity and scientific rigour.

When did this become a discussion about global warming proponents?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuOnvlleiGY&feature=player_embedded#!

and I didn't even use Fox -- this time.