[Moonie2012]

bee, on 04 November 2009 - 04:00 PM, said:

Stop begging Sweetpumper.

You're embarassing yourself.....

Stop posting, you're embarrassing yourself...

TALM, on 04 November 2009 - 04:01 PM, said:

It can be seen in the "on the rim of Langrenus crater" thread.

Its there but I purposly over enhanced it couldnt be recognized.

My own cover up if you will.

So in essence, you have never shown one of these pics. "My own cover up" and "FULL DISCLOSURE" don't exactly go hand in hand.

This post has been edited by Moonie2012: 04 November 2009 - 10:06 PM

[Scanner.....]

Moonie2012, on 04 November 2009 - 08:50 PM, said:

Uh-oh...

Quick! To the backtrack mobile!

The 'backtrack mobile'.. LOL

[Sweetpumper]

bee, on 04 November 2009 - 10:00 PM, said:

Stop begging Sweetpumper.

You're embarassing yourself.....

Oh...my...God.

Of all the posters for that to come from.

[TALM]

Moonie2012, on 04 November 2009 - 10:03 PM, said:

Stop posting, you're embarrassing yourself...



So in essence, you have never shown one of these pics. "My own cover up" and "FULL DISCLOSURE" don't exactly go hand in hand.

In the "Does NASA alter" thread I posted some examples of stuff froma photo I have that NASA edited out of their on line version.

The Growth can be seen it it.

Come to think of it, it might still be there. Of course you will probley scoff at it.

But never the less....................

Full disclosure as stated by me refers to integrity.

[InsideOut]

Not to providing actual evidence then.
Post actual proof or walk away. As everyone has politely requested, then asked for, then demanded time and time again now.

I took a break from my own little backyard scope earlier tonight to use a few of the amazing online telescopes that are available in observatories around the world (versions ideal for DSO imaging as well as planetary - google away). Obviously these including things like 10 or even 24 inch ones absolutely dwarf my own and can get magnifications and views that are truly stunning. Naturally being in utter fascination any time I see one of the Apollo landing sites and think "we WENT THERE!", I took more than a few views of the lunar surface, your beloved "mares". It's about as brutally plain as you need to see that it is ROCK, TALM. You are free to go and try them out for yourself. That's about as research-y as you can get, and these things make a mockery of whatever someone dreamed up in the 1920's. Hopefully you'll take the opportunity to do so, though I have a feeling you'll cling to those obscure images until the heat-death of the Universe.
In short:
Prove it, or get over it.

[MID]

TALM, on 04 November 2009 - 03:35 PM, said:

I suppose the reason I posted the above text is because my research was done and I had my conclusions and then I ran across the proffesors studies and I giggled all night long. Read the artical by him and try to realize that my observations and findings were done way before I knew anything about him or his research.

That's gotta be hard when, by your own admission, you're no smarter than a 5th grader...


I gotta hand it to you TALM.
You've got the balls to argue with Peri.


That's been fun to read...
And sort of disturbing, because you're thrashed by him and you don't know it.

This post has been edited by MID: 05 November 2009 - 01:40 AM

[MID]

Sweetpumper, on 04 November 2009 - 05:13 PM, said:

Oh...my...God.

Of all the posters for that to come from.

...Holy Crap.

Blatant abuse of someone else's work, I know, and right in his face to boot... ... but damn, it fits!

I concur , Sweet...

[Moonie2012]

TALM, on 04 November 2009 - 04:28 PM, said:

In the "Does NASA alter" thread I posted some examples of stuff froma photo I have that NASA edited out of their on line version.

The Growth can be seen it it.

Come to think of it, it might still be there. Of course you will probley scoff at it.

Probably. But for the sake of argument (and since you seem to have a penchant for telling people they don't know what they are referring to when they refer back to something you posted) please post it again here so we can know EXACTLY what you are referring to.

This post has been edited by Moonie2012: 05 November 2009 - 01:58 AM

[DONTEATUS]

At last count Mid owes Sweetpumper about a Gazillion bucks in Royalities ? LoL

[Czero 101]

bee, on 04 November 2009 - 02:00 PM, said:

Stop begging Sweetpumper.

You're embarassing yourself.....

Wow... Ignorance AND Irony from the Queen Bee of Embarrassing Themselves...




Cz

[747400]

bee, on 04 November 2009 - 10:00 PM, said:

Stop begging Sweetpumper.

You're embarassing yourself.....

Irony, there, in view of, shall we pick as an example, this excuse comment.... ?

TALM, on 04 November 2009 - 10:01 PM, said:

It can be seen in the "on the rim of Langrenus crater" thread.

Its there but I purposly over enhanced it couldnt be recognized.

My own cover up if you will.

I dont know if I scuttled those or not.

This post has been edited by 747400: 05 November 2009 - 08:09 AM

[bee]

A question....WHY would NASA et al keep Moon 'vegetation' of any kind...secret?


I can see the reasoning (although I don't agree with it) of keeping Ancient Structures,
Luns Ruins, possible Ancient Artifacts leading to unique knowledge....that could give
a nation the edge in the area of modern technology...


But what would be the big deal about 'vegetation'?....


To keep the accepted paradigm of a 'lifeless' Moon intact?

Because the said 'vegetation' would cause major problems for physically
landing and moving around on the Moon's surface...in the way that is
portrayed by the Apollo Missions?

Would it bring into question the kind of radiation that is said to be on the Moon?


What would/could be the purpose of keeping Moon 'vegetation' secret?

[Lilly]

bee, on 05 November 2009 - 11:11 AM, said:

A question....WHY would NASA et al keep Moon 'vegetation' of any kind...secret?

Before asking ourselves "WHY" NASA would want to keep moon vegetation/alien ruins/moon bases a secret, I think we should ask "HOW" NASA is going to keep all that stuff a secret?

Take a look here. As we can see there are some very serious hobbists out there. Are all of these folks (in various countries world wide) "NASA disinformation agents"? Application of common sense indicates otherwise.

[DONTEATUS]

It does boggle the Mind Lilly!
Now for a salad of Moon Greens and Blue Moon Cheese!

This post has been edited by DONTEATUS: 05 November 2009 - 03:22 PM

[TALM]

InsideOut, on 05 November 2009 - 01:34 AM, said:

Not to providing actual evidence then.
Post actual proof or walk away. As everyone has politely requested, then asked for, then demanded time and time again now.

I took a break from my own little backyard scope earlier tonight to use a few of the amazing online telescopes that are available in observatories around the world (versions ideal for DSO imaging as well as planetary - google away). Obviously these including things like 10 or even 24 inch ones absolutely dwarf my own and can get magnifications and views that are truly stunning. Naturally being in utter fascination any time I see one of the Apollo landing sites and think "we WENT THERE!", I took more than a few views of the lunar surface, your beloved "mares". It's about as brutally plain as you need to see that it is ROCK, TALM. You are free to go and try them out for yourself. That's about as research-y as you can get, and these things make a mockery of whatever someone dreamed up in the 1920's. Hopefully you'll take the opportunity to do so, though I have a feeling you'll cling to those obscure images until the heat-death of the Universe.
In short:
Prove it, or get over it.

Actual proof of the mans research? Well,I posted the link. If you need to have it authenticated I will leave it to you as so far your the only one that needs proof that his work exist.

I appreciate that you dont see the life (in detail) with the best telescopes available. Niether did the man in his research. You really should actualy read the article and then figure out how to go about making the same observations he did.

Prove the original topic of this post or get over it?
As I said, do your own research. Because as of yet, no one else has questioned if this mans research existed.