Mesmerized by the Moon

Re: Re: Re: Dont see the contradiction?

Originally posted by fluid1959

Exactly what are the qualifications to get hi res Photo's?
That I have a PhD and I work for NASA.
Click to expand...

Yep, that would be a start. None of the people I know that have PhDs and have worked for NASA share your conspiracy theories. Maybe because they've seen the data and know there's nothing untoward? If you are really sure of your conspiracy theory, surely, spending three years getting a Phd to satisfy a lifetimes curiousity is a good deal? Or aren't you bothered to invest the time?

" I DONT WORK FOR NASA! NASA IS SUPPOSED TO WORK FOR ME !"
Click to expand...

Where do you get that idea from? Just 'cos you pay taxes? What other govt organisations does that mentality apply to? The military? The police? can you get the army to invade countries you want them to because they work for you? Or get the police to let you off a speeding ticket 'cos they work for you? NO! So just why should NASA do what you want? NASA do what the consensus of scientists who work for them want to do! If you want NASA to do something, go join them, and try and steer them your way.


You and NASA share that same moronic beleif that NASA doesn't have to answer to the "here it comes" " THE PUBLIC"
Click to expand...

It doesn't. It just spends your money on what it wants to do. DUH!

Only NASA Geologists, Astrologists etc.
can have opinions on data?
Click to expand...

If they are the only people with access to the data, then yes. DUH!

How many rocket scientest are needed to take a photograph ?
Click to expand...

They've got photographs. You haven't. Quite bitching and get a PhD, and maybe they'll let you see them.
 
Re: The unaware

Originally posted by fluid1959
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/spaceact.html#POLICY[/url]

Sec. 102. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.
Click to expand...

Oh, really, .... you're reading is a little out of date;

"The United States Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has announced that his country is to implement the White House-s policy to militarise space."

Source;

http://english.pravda.ru/politics/2001/05/10/4940.html

So, you are completely wrong. It is the goal of the United States to completely militarise and dominate space for the sole benefit of the USA.

If you kept up with your reading on facts, rather than space fantasy, you'd know that the USA and ESA ar at loggerhaeds over the European Galileo GPS system. This is because the USA want to control space, and space based resources that are useful in wartime. If they control this data, they always have an advantage. This is Why Russia is also building GLONASS, and China the Beidou system, to diminish the technogical lead the USA has, and establish an equal military foothold in space.

So, space isn't for your benefit, sorry. It a resource that world govts are fighting over, albeit fairly politely at present.
 
Re: Re: The unaware

Originally posted by phlogistician
So, you are completely wrong. It is the goal of the United States to completely militarise and dominate space for the sole benefit of the USA.
Click to expand...

And another reason to despise the current administration.

What a dispicable race of beings we are.
 
in post by phlogistician:
Oh, really, .... you're reading is a little out of date;
=====================================

Out of date? The Pravda article was dated May 5, 2001. Although
the space act was inacted in 1958, the late update to it was on
Dec. 14, 2001.
I read Pravda sometimes, too. Phlogistician, do you accept their
articles as accurate and balanced? I guess you will have no problem
accepting the following article:
http://english.pravda.ru/society/2003/04/01/45389.html
;)
 
Pravda was just one of the first sources I came across, and I linked it because it amused me, having seen the link to the structures on the moon posted here before. I linked it for the exact reasons you did, trust in a particular source.

But the militarisation of space stories have been in the press a lot recently, partly becaus ete USA is getting pissy with ESA about Galileo, as it levels the playing field.

Here's some from other, more recent sources.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,649931,00.html

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsControl/Space.asp

Of course, the space act doesn't carry much weight, as it's US only , the United Nations treaty on the use of space is far more relevant having being agreed on by more than one self serving nation, but we know just how much Bush et al pay attention to UN advice at the moment.

Anyway, here's a nice little snippet from the US 1958 Space Act;

"The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.


...except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President"

So basically they start with a lofty sounding ideal, and then cut the bullshit and reserve their right to militarize space.

Great, eh?

And Vrob, yes, we are pretty despicable. So why would aliens conspire with the governments that perpetrate such things? Surely, they'd make themselves known, and perhaps tell us to clean our act up. You know, a bit like 'The day the Earth stood still'?
 
by phlogistician:
And Vrob, yes, we are pretty despicable. So why would aliens conspire with the governments that perpetrate such things? Surely, they'd make themselves known, and perhaps tell us to clean our act up. You know, a bit like 'The day the Earth stood still'?
==============================================

If we are going to use movies and TV to interpit possible alien
agendas, why not Star Trek? Perhaps the aliens are a members
of a space-faring Federation. You know, don't interfer with the
internal politics of a "primitive" world, only if they acquire the
technology to present a threat to other worlds will they be admitted
to, and governed by the Federation. A bit like Star Trek's Prime
Directive. Speculation on alien agendas is just that, speculation.
 
Originally posted by 2inquisitive
... Perhaps the aliens are a members
of a space-faring Federation. You know, don't interfer with the
internal politics of a "primitive" world, only if they acquire the
technology to present a threat to other worlds ...
Click to expand...

That is a fair speculation, after all, it's what we try and do on earth with wildlife, watch and observe, without affecting the behaviour of a species, and yes, we do occasionally capture species, and perform tests on them, so the analogy almost holds.

It just falls down when we include the technological advantage alien beings must have to be able to come visit us.

If they can get here in a reasonable time from a nearby star, they have found ways to do increbible things. So you'd think their DNA analysis of humans would be top notch, and they could do that from stuff we leave lying around, they would actually have to confront us ever. They should be able to use MRI scans on us, to determine our internal structure easily. They should at least be able to make a decent anaesthetic!

Would leaving behind structures on the Moon for us to discover fit that ideal though? I don't think so. Unless they were left as part of a paper trail. In which case, if we are supposed to find them, why do they keep coming here?

Btw, a quick bit of digging on the NASA web site revealed lots of med res piccies of the moon available, and microfiche of originals for sale. Looking at the mission data for some of the probes, and the distances some of these pictures were taken, the resolution is as good as it's going to get. Just where does the idea come from that there better, and what are the numbers, and from what missions? Or is there such a big coverup we don't even know that ;-) ?
 
this picture is pretty AMAZING!!!!
its from www.keithlaney.com

That is definetly a entrance (natrual or rtifical its definetly some kind of entrance)
Theres also so many other weird object's on the even considering the poor image qualityIMG]http://www.keithlaney.com/TargetMarsHome/4-27H1mining.jpg[/IMG]
 
Er, which bit? All I see are craters etc.

Could you mark which bit you think is the entrance, and upload to an image host for us?
 
Originally posted by Star_One
this picture is pretty AMAZING!!!!
its from www.keithlaney.com

That is definetly a entrance (natrual or rtifical its definetly some kind of entrance)
Theres also so many other weird object's on the even considering the poor image qualityIMG]http://www.keithlaney.com/TargetMarsHome/4-27H1mining.jpg[/IMG]
Click to expand...
Entrance? You mean a hole? There is a hole on the surface of Mars? How very interesting. :rolleyes:

What other weird objects?

Hans
 
Ah, I see, 'cos it appears square? Iif you look closely at the image, you'll see a few pixels of an intermediate greyscale to the top, and right sides, which soften the hard edge. Plus, the top edge is on the boundary of where the images were mosaiced together, and if you've ever written or used software to do that, you'll know that normalising colour (or greyscale) palettes is hard, and strong differences at boundaries can mess things up (as it is hard to detect edges at boundaries, AND normalise greyscales so gradations blend properly. Lighting conditions could have changed considerably between the pictures).

So you have a crater, in shadow, with a fairly string light source causing a little too much contrast around the crest. Hmm. Not really compelling. Now what's the resolution of that picture? How many metres per pixel, and just where are we going to find an opening of similar size on earth for comparison? Anything man made spring to mind? No? Why is that?
 
i must say im not convinced,it looks too much like some kind of entrance thingy, especially when you zoom in and brighten it ....

there was a couple of other image from keithlaney.com i was gonna post but cant find them, will post them tommorow
 
Here it is, what on earth is the circular object in the middle????, could it be a part of a crashed probe????
AS16-116-18603details.jpg
 
I desperately want to see evidence of structures on other planets/moons but ARE YOU PEOPLE JOKING? This could only be proof to someone who worships a collection of virgin mary shaped potato chips! To call this evidence lacking is a dramatic understatement. It's a small blurry blob that, when enlarged, becomes a big really blurry blob.

This kinda stuff is not helping 'the cause' guys. Better to offer no evidence at all than things this weak and ambiguous.
 
Buffys: I couldn't have said it better!

And these are NASA pictures. Obviously, NASA experts have been looking quite closely on those pictures (when you spend a couple of billion bucks on taking some pictures of Mars, you do look closely at them). If there was something weird there, they would have noticed.

Ahh, the conspiracy theory? :bugeye: Well, an agency struggling for budgets would hardly want to hide something that could practically ensure them a blank check, but IF they wanted to hide something, then please tell me why they publish the pictures on the internet? :rolleyes:

This parrot would't VOOM if you put a million volts through it.

Hans
 
Reiterate thee obvious

In 1959, the Soviet Union got the first close look, as the Luna 1 probe passed within 4,660 miles of the moon

Luna 2 was a bigger hit -- literally, as it impacted the lunar surface.

Luna 3, in the same year, flew past the moon, sending back the first pictures of the "dark side" -- the side that faces away from Earth.

in 1964, when the unmanned Ranger 7 spacecraft crashed into the lunar surface. Ranger 8 and 9 followed in 1965,

Soviet Luna 9 probe was a landmark, making a soft landing on the moon in 1966

U.S. Lunar Orbiter probes circled the moon in 1966. In 1966 and 1967, a total of 14 U.S and Soviet probes orbited and landed on the moon, in the first extraterrestrial rush hour.


Pioneer: Series of five lunar flights, only Pioneer 4 was successful, 1958-1959.
Ranger: Series of hardware and imaging flights to Moon.
Surveyor: Series of softlander flights to the Moon.
Lunar Orbiter: Series of imaging missions to Moon.
Clementine: A cooperative DOD/NASA lunar mapping mission. Clementine was launched on 25 January 1994
Not to mention lunar prospector missions ?

The Apollo missions;
were very interesting, because they were all made to study the moon. Of all the Apollo Missions, six of them landed on the moon. These landings occured between 1969 and 1972. These missions provided scientists with information on the Apollo misssions, such as pictures, surface and orbital expiriment results, sample collections, and surface operations. The six landing missions were
Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17.

How many Moon missions does it take to get high resolution pictures of the moon surface around the whole planetary body?
Thee answer as of yet is ? We don't know ! We still don't have high resolutions photo's "especially where we know there are objects to study.

People such as MRC Hans/Buffy with their pre-conceptions of what NASA is,.. make fine points, until you include one little thingy they missed.... that would be the facts.

NASA = Never Admit Seeing Anything
 
Last edited:
NASA is as important to Space research as Project Blue Book was to UFO Research.

They are a Public front intended to take any exposure away from our real space agency, The United States Military.
 
hopefully it will all be over soon

Merry christmas

December 25 2003

http://berlinadmin.dlr.de/Missions/express/indexeng.shtml

NASA=Never Admit Seeing Anything

ESA=Eat SHit Americans ; Here comes Europe

16th Dec 2003
All day
Fine targeting of Mars Express to point at the landing site


19th Dec
06:51 GMT
Decision to release Beagle 2


19th Dec
08:11 GMT
Eject command sent to Mars Express


19th Dec
10:15 GMT
First results of release available


20th Dec
All day
Retargeting of Mars Express on an orbital insertion course


23rd Dec
T.B.D.
Update on Mars Express orbital insertion sequence


24th Dec
Night
Final decision to steer Mars Express into a Martian orbit


25th Dec
02:54 GMT
Beagle 2 lands on Mars


25th Dec
03:00 GMT
Mars Express orbital insertion


25th Dec
05:15 GMT
Mars Odyssey orbiter flies over Beagle 2 - first possible signal retrieval from the lander


25th Dec
07:00 GMT
First evaluation of Mars Express orbital insertion


25th Dec
07:15 GMT
Sunset on Mars (18:35 local solar time)


25th Dec
20:02 GMT
Sunrise on Mars (07:02 local solar time)


25th Dec
22:45 GMT
Possible direct capture of Beagle 2 signals at Jodrell Bank Observatory (UK)


26th Dec
07:55 GMT
Sunset on Mars (18:36 local solar time)

http://www.beagle2.com/index.htm
 
Last edited:
Hey Fluid, I used to work with some of the guys that built parts of Beagle-2.

I don't think any of them are expecting to find Martians with their instruments, ....!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top