"Alien Structures on the Moon"

[Quaentum]

Light and dark at extreme magnification is a wonderful example of Pareidolia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

[JesseCuster]

Nobody criticizing my point offered anything at all of substance refuting the claim that Gavrinis engravings had been decoded by mathetmaticians.

There was nothing to refute. You never provided anything of substance in the first place.

Your claim boils down to "Pi is encoded within Gavrinis to impressive accuracy. Therefore aliens. I saw it on a TV show."

Until someone actually explains how pi is encoded within Gavrinis and how it is very impressive and how this means aliens, there's nothing to say. Which is why I asked for further details from you, but I didn't get any, so I've got nothing to refute.

[mcrom901]

Until someone actually explains how pi is encoded within Gavrinis and how it is very impressive and how this means aliens, there's nothing to say.

[mysticwerewolf]

you know there are alien structures / Artifacts on the moon, the USA has left parts of past space craft behind, and flags, and empty boxes and trash and other things as have the Russians. while these are not living quarters or working quarters or science quarters or flight decks or storage space, they were constructed and they are now on the moon. With that being said I don't believe that there have ever been cities or space bases in on, or under the surface of the moon, but will not say with 101% certainty that there is not and never has been because I have never been there to search for an answer to that question.

[psyche101]

you know there are alien structures / Artifacts on the moon, the USA has left parts of past space craft behind, and flags, and empty boxes and trash and other things as have the Russians. while these are not living quarters or working quarters or science quarters or flight decks or storage space, they were constructed and they are now on the moon. With that being said I don't believe that there have ever been cities or space bases in on, or under the surface of the moon, but will not say with 101% certainty that there is not and never has been because I have never been there to search for an answer to that question.

You can see at least half of it with a decent telescope. That is in a sense "going there" I think?

Edited May 8, 2013 by psyche101

[DONTEATUS]

I will say with A one trillion % that there are No Alien Bases on the Moon ! I can Prove it too ! Fly me there and I will Show you !

[Midyin]

"If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little."

~George Carlin~

[psyche101]

"If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little."

~George Carlin~

I honestly feel that regardless of his intention, he is only speaking for himself.

[badeskov]

I honestly feel that regardless of his intention, he is only speaking for himself.

And quite irrelevant as I don't know of anybody making the claim that we are the only species in the Universe, rather the opposite...

Cheers,

Badeskov

[DONTEATUS]

THeres millions of potential races ,beings,ect E.T`s out there ! ITs just we dont have any proof . YET ! As for the Moon Bases ! My Offer still Stands ! Anyone that thinks there Real Alien Bases on the Moon Fly me there And We can Look !

[Smirnov]

Light and dark at extreme magnification is a wonderful example of Pareidolia http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Pareidolia

http://en.wikipedia....ard_C._Hoagland

Richard Charles Hoagland,^[3] (born 25 April 1945 in Morristown, New Jersey^[4]) is an American author, and a proponent of various conspiracy theories about NASA, lost alien civilizations on the Moon and on Mars and other related topics.

His writings claim that advanced civilizations exist or once existed on the Moon, Mars and on some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and that NASA and the United States government have conspired to keep these facts secret.

Hoagland claims the "Face on Mars" is part of a city built on Cydonia Planitia consisting of very large pyramids and mounds arranged in a geometric pattern, with the ratios between measured angles roughly equaling mathematical constants such as pi (π), e, as well as the square root of 2 (√2), the square root of 3 (√3), and the number 3. He states that the ratio between the surface area of a sphere and the surface area of the tetrahedron inscribed within it, ≈2.720699, which is π × (√3)/2, is an approximation of e that he refers to as e'. Since e'/π = (√3)/2 = ≈0.866, he speculates that the primary meaning of the geometry of Cydonia is to emphasize the ratio of the sphere and circumscribed tetrahedron.^[32] To Hoagland, this is evidence that an advanced civilization might once have existed on Mars, and that NASA is suppressing the evidence for reasons explained in a 1960 Brookings Institution report entitled "Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs."

In March 2010, Mars Express returned radar and visual data from Mars' larger moon, Phobos, showing the moon in unprecedented detail.^[42][43] Hoagland wrote that Phobos was revealed to be artificial, a "manufactured" satellite.

Hoagland rejects the entire body of knowledge represented by professional selenology and asserts that there are large semitransparent structures constructed of glass on the lunar surface, visible in some Apollo photography when the images are digitally manipulated,^[56] and even more so when old photoprints are re-scanned on amateur equipment in non-clean conditions.^[57] He goes on to say that NASA is suppressing knowledge of an ancient civilization on the Moon, and that the advanced technology of this civilization is lying around on the Moon's surface.

It is Hoagland's opinion that NASA's two Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) spacecraft were sent to map the gravitational field of the Moon to confirm the "presence of actual engines inside the Moon."^[66] Based on his examination of earlier NASA lunar seismic data, he said that he found "symmetrical structures under the lunar surface at the depth of the core of the Moon." Moreover, he said that the "Moon is not ours" and that it was "brought here and placed in orbit" around the Earth.

Hoagland claims the United States government has covered up the presence of extraterrestrials, that the Space Agency^[who?] murdered the Apollo 1 astronauts,^[67] that NASA missions to Mars are a "well documented interest of the Bush family,"^[68][69] and that there is a clandestine space program which uses anti-gravity technology reverse-engineered from lunar artifacts and communicated by secret societies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pCzmln4-lBw

http://www.bibliotec...tionalien25.htm

In the article titled "I Saw Structures on the Moon" Karl Wolfe, who worked for the Director of Intelligence at Headquarters Tactical Air Command, Technical Group, documents to have indeed seen photographs of alien spacecraft and buildings.

Karl Wolfe, Richard Hoagland and Alex Collier all confirm alien structures like for example glass Dome cities, elevators, bridges, pyramids, other "buildings" lit up from inside, including wreckage of alien spacecraft on the Moon.

The two Soviet scientists Vasin and Shcherbokov, and David Icke, and Alex Collier all confirm that the Moon is artificial and came from somewhere else.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Smirnov

[JimOberg]

In the article titled "I Saw Structures on the Moon" Karl Wolfe, who worked for the Director of Intelligence at Headquarters Tactical Air Command, Technical Group, documents to have indeed seen photographs of alien spacecraft and buildings. Karl Wolfe, Richard Hoagland and Alex Collier all confirm alien structures like for example glass Dome cities, elevators, bridges, pyramids, other "buildings" lit up from inside, including wreckage of alien spacecraft on the Moon.

JimO: Wolfe's sworn testimony states that he saw the structures on the back side of the moon two years before the lunar orbiter probes actually took them. Be sure to weigh the likelihood of that being true.

The two Soviet scientists Vasin and Shcherbokov, and David Icke, and Alex Collier all confirm that the Moon is artificial and came from somewhere else.

JimO: Vasin and Shcherbakov [note correct spelling] are not scientists -- any literature search shows that. They were journalists who wrote a spoof article mocking the theory that the moon of Mars was hollow, by claiming the same for Earth's moon. Anybody who fell for it, is the real butt of the joke.

Edited May 8, 2013 by JimOberg

[Quaentum]

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pCzmln4-lBw[/media]

http://www.bibliotec...tionalien25.htm

One snippet from the wikipedia to give you an idea of the invalidity of the claims:

Hoagland rejects the entire body of knowledge represented by professional selenology and asserts that there are large semitransparent structures constructed of glass on the lunar surface, visible in some Apollo photography when the images are digitally manipulated,

If you have to manipulate images to show something you claim is there you have already proved it's not.

As far as the video, with the exception of a few shots in the beginning the rest has been created. The shots of the experiment packages is crystal clear but of the structure are all out of focus and they made the mistake of superimposing the 3d framework (just before texture is added) on top of the structure. Video of supposed spaceship is either at a distance with numbers and other effects layered in that obscure the image or are up close but despite the sun, none of the moon shows up in the closeups. The alien at the end of the video is a poorly made fake that it is ridiculous.

You should check out actual scientific sources instead of the fringe sites. For the most part, fringe sites are saying what they say to get you to buy the book not because it's true.

[DONTEATUS]

Wil it ever end ? Ever ? The Moon is just what it is, Rock a lot of our rock !

[HDesiato]

If you have to manipulate images to show something you claim is there you have already proved it's not.

Hollywood really had a hand in this silly trope:

[Babe Ruth]

There was nothing to refute. You never provided anything of substance in the first place.

Your claim boils down to "Pi is encoded within Gavrinis to impressive accuracy. Therefore aliens. I saw it on a TV show."

Until someone actually explains how pi is encoded within Gavrinis and how it is very impressive and how this means aliens, there's nothing to say. Which is why I asked for further details from you, but I didn't get any, so I've got nothing to refute.

Precisely. You have nothing to refute because you are not aware of whether the engravings there have been decoded or not, and you categorically do not believe that they have, because you simply do not believe anything at all put forth by AA, because you simply do not believe that this planet has been visited by others. I do understand Archimedes, I do understand.

On the other hand, I am willing to entertain any idea. Further, I can entertain an idea without embracing it, without accepting it. And I happen to believe there is ample evidence, abundant evidence, that this planet has been visited in times gone by. I happen to believe that the body of knowledge possessed by humans is wee tiny compared to the body of knowledge UNpossessed by humans.

[JesseCuster]

Precisely. You have nothing to refute because you are not aware of whether the engravings there have been decoded or not, and you categorically do not believe that they have, because you simply do not believe anything at all put forth by AA, because you simply do not believe that this planet has been visited by others.

I certainly do not categorically believe anything about what may or may not be encoded within Gavrinis. Which is why I asked for details. Which you have repeatedly not provided beyond the fact that you'd seen it in a TV show.

On the other hand, I am willing to entertain any idea. Further, I can entertain an idea without embracing it, without accepting it.

Yes, I get it. You made a vague claim which I am skeptical about and asked for further details of. This makes me close-minded. You can tell I'm close minded because of a handful of posts about a particular topic in which I made the grave sin of asking for evidence about a claim.

The reason I am skeptical is that the few times I have taken the time to examine grand claims about the amazing geometry encoded in Cydonia on Mars, the Pyramids, etc. it has turned to be anything from dubious to outright crackpottery.

Arbitrary things are measured according to the whims of the 'researcher'. They are subject to arbitrary manipulation (add some of them, divide by others, etc. ) until something closely resembling a recognizable value falls out. When you get something that's close to pi or e or the square root of 2, you then add "therefore aliens".

Perhaps in the case of Gavrinis it is different and there is something very interesting there. Can't say much though about such amazing mathematical accuracies when the person claiming it won't say anything about it.

[Dark_Grey]

I can't believe this thread is still going - it's moved slightly to the left of my original post but there have been interesting debunking debates going on...

Though most YouTube clips are really amateurish at best, they are still entertaining. The idea of structures or crashed ancient ships on the moon really speaks to the inner child

[Quaentum]

Precisely. You have nothing to refute because you are not aware of whether the engravings there have been decoded or not, and you categorically do not believe that they have, because you simply do not believe anything at all put forth by AA, because you simply do not believe that this planet has been visited by others. I do understand Archimedes, I do understand.

On the other hand, I am willing to entertain any idea. Further, I can entertain an idea without embracing it, without accepting it. And I happen to believe there is ample evidence, abundant evidence, that this planet has been visited in times gone by. I happen to believe that the body of knowledge possessed by humans is wee tiny compared to the body of knowledge UNpossessed by humans.

I read through your posts in this topic. Your claim that the Gavrinis stonework has been decoded by mathematicians has yet to be supported by evidence. As noted by Psyche101 in post 188 the names and works of the supposed mathematicians has not been cited. Further, a generic reference to the show Ancient Aliens does no good since there are over 40 episodes in 4 seasons and no one is going to sit and watch 40+ hours to try to find the episode and segment that refers to this.

Even though you may have been influenced by what you saw on AA, you have still made the claim concerning Gavrinis and it is you that needs to post links to the evidence that supports the claim or you are absolutely right, no one will believe the claim.

There is one idea you do not seem to be able to entertain and that is that your oponents are right.

[JesseCuster]

Here's a clip I found from Ancient Aliens about Gavrinis.

Is this what you were talking about Babe Ruth?

Jesus wept. Is that typical of the show 'Ancient Aliens'? I've heard of it but never seen it before. Unidentified mathematicians did something mathematical with spirals inside Gavrinis using methods that aren't described and discovered co-ordinates and pi. Well, color me convinced.

But it's true because they had an MIT professor interviewed! Who popped up merely to tell us that pi is an important number in mathematics and is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. Thanks professor!

Is there more to the clip than that 3 minutes that I'm missing out on that actually has something convincing in it?

[JesseCuster]

Hollywood really had a hand in this silly trope:

[media=]

[/media]

[DONTEATUS]

Hollywood really had a hand in this silly trope:

[media=]

[/media]

Hit it Right on the Head ! Good one HDesiato !

[DONTEATUS]

ANd will we ever hear the end to Wackin-bush Hair Guy ?

[psyche101]

Karl Wolfe, Richard Hoagland and Alex Collier all confirm alien structures like for example glass Dome cities, elevators, bridges, pyramids, other "buildings" lit up from inside, including wreckage of alien spacecraft on the Moon.

The two Soviet scientists Vasin and Shcherbokov, and David Icke, and Alex Collier all confirm that the Moon is artificial and came from somewhere else.

Ever thought of writing down the co-ordinates, getting of your backside to book some time at your local observatory and having a decent look yourself?

I look at the surface of the moon regularly with my own eyes. You should try it. Beats reading woo woo sites on the Net I asure you. And it is real. One thing though. millions of people do it every day, yet not one on earth can prove this claim, what does that tell you?

[psyche101]

Precisely. You have nothing to refute because you are not aware of whether the engravings there have been decoded or not, and you categorically do not believe that they have, because you simply do not believe anything at all put forth by AA, because you simply do not believe that this planet has been visited by others. I do understand Archimedes, I do understand.

On the other hand, I am willing to entertain any idea. Further, I can entertain an idea without embracing it, without accepting it. And I happen to believe there is ample evidence, abundant evidence, that this planet has been visited in times gone by. I happen to believe that the body of knowledge possessed by humans is wee tiny compared to the body of knowledge UNpossessed by humans.

No you are not, you are willing to entertain any claim that bucks conventional knowledge. You are a closet fringer. You should admit it to yourself at least.

I have searched far and wide and nobody backs this claim, no mathematician supports it, nothing. As far as I can tell, Giorgio made that up.

As long as it is controversial you will believe it wont you. You must work at this view to maintain it.

So I state. that the claim you provided is a lie, not misunderstanding, not professional error, an outright lie, prove to me that it is not.

Why can you not entertain the idea that your unsupported clams are no more than woo woo? You are certainly not willing to entertain any claim, you will not give a moments notice to conventional explanations no matter how much supporting information is provided You have never backed a single claim you have made, but you have got very emotional about them.

Good God man, I am about to go get my broom and call Shenanigans on you.

Edited May 8, 2013 by psyche101