I.e., Elvis has left the building

Cheers,
Badeskov

I've just noticed your Twain quote. Pretty much sums it all up really. Except most people on here tend to dispense with even the most basic of facts.

Emphasis mine. Yeah, and that was exactly why I found that one fitting. Fact finding sometimes resembles a lost art around here, which is a pity as there are quite a few good facts to actually discuss pertaining to this subject!

Cheers,
Badeskov

Its hard to pull out images with these type of photos. You have to be careful with "Matrixing". Then once someone "Suggests" what it is, the brain is automatically going to respond to that image. The brain learns with the method of memory. Once it memorizes an image or word, that's what its going to remember. "Power of suggestion" can be a strong thing.

If you ask me, IMOP... it looks like a Satellite Dish? But, that's what I see. Everyone could see something different due to the matrixing I just explained. But it looks like more like a blurry & pixelized image of the moon. I wouldn't make a 100% percent decision & give an opinion on an image that is not clear. ( Pure logic & Common sense )

I simply provided a link to a book which relates directly to this thread and a lot more. The response from a couple of debunkers was to claim the book and its author are both a joke even though niether of them have ever heard nor even read the book in question.
As a newbie in this forum its clear debunkers are in full force here but they had better be prepared to stick to facts if they reply to my posts or risk being shown up for their debunking ways.

That they both admitted they had never heard of ingo or his book yet find it funny
Tells me all I need to know.

URV

Since you refer to me (I presume), I will allow myself to answer here (I am sure that if Lilly has an answer, she will let it be heard).

First of all, nowhere did I call the author of said book or the book itself a joke. While I actually do find it a joke, nowhere was that stated explicitly and the joke question was actually meant towards your posting of it as a reference. And it was an honest question, as I was truly curious to whether you meant it seriously or not. But apparently you did.

Which leads me to the following.

You referenced to a whole book as a substantiation of your claim. To be blunt, that is simply not good enough - especially in the light of it going against what science knows at the time being. If you want to substantiate your claims from something, you refer to the specific parts that has relevance to your claims and then you explain why.

Neither I nor any other skeptic (or believer for that matter) is going to sift through a whole book just because you think that somewhere in there you have your proof. If you want serious consideration of your claims, be concise and specific and point to where you think your proof is. That actually solicits the good, respectful discussions. Especially as you go against an uncounted number of scientists in the field. Just leaning against a book and then saying that we are debunkers just because we (now I will take the liberty to include itsnotoutthere) don't want to read a whole book as you apparently either don't have the means or the time to point out where the relevant paragraphs are with respect to your claims is just not enough. Either you can substantiate what you are claiming or you can't - obviously in this case you cannot.

Cheers,
Badeskov

URV,BAD,ASAP,KISS,AND,MAKE,UP LoL.ITs all as the mod`s said in a land far ,far away Post the point of views and be kind to all in here.Now IM sending this to you thur the electron air waves is it getting thur?IMO

It was an immature question at the very least. Nothing to do with honesty.



The ENTIRE book substantiates the arguement that their exists structures
And possibly ETs on the moon. This was clearly pointed out in my post.
The offer for those unaware of the claims ingo made or the book to buy or download the relevant material was made and its upto you to read it and make an informed opinion not debunk it outright or claim ignorance.



That's your problem not mine.
Its a typical debunking tactic to claim ignorance or lazyness to reading material that does not conform to the debunkers
Closed minded mentality.



The proof is in the book. The WHOLE book.
Now are you going to waffle on about
How you are incapable of reading the book
Or are you actually going to proove me wrong that you are a sincere open minded
Skeptic and not just another lazy closed minded debunker.

As a dedicated and practicing remote viewer I can only pray that you are in the minority in this forum who knows nothing whatsoever of ingo's scientific work with some of the best scientific minds out of SRI and millitary intelligence not to mention impecable credentials.
As a resullt
What he has to say about the moon and his experience deserves to be taken seriously.

The book is there for you to read and make your own mind up not for me to hold your hand like a 5 year old and spoon feed you with knowledge.

I see you also mentioned you don't believe in psychic abilities ??? God only knows what kind of responses I will read when I finaly get round to reading the psychic forum threads lol

Nuff said

URV

Exactly, this is why I posted that if discussion of Mr. Swann's book is the goal, then a thread specifically devoted to said book needs to be created.

As for the discussion at hand here (in this thread) specific portions of Mr. Swann's book can certainly be quoted (and properly referenced) to support one's argument. However, "just leaning against a whole book" and 'nay saying' everyone else's argument is not a form of valid discussion.

Once again, this thread is not about this particular book. It is your responsibility in this discussion to quote and reference the portions of Mr. Swann's argument that support your argument in this thread.

Want to discuss the entire book...Open a new thread devoted to the book.

Lilly

Here's what I will do.
Once the 2 debunkers have at least read the book I will think about starting a new thread about the book otherwise its pointless and a complete waste of my time debating the subject any further.
At least some good has come out of this debate. Someone now knows who ingo swann is lol

URV

For those who may not be familiar with Ingo Swann, here's a link that provides a nice synopsis.

Can't we all just get along!? LOL...

From what I can see, I'm not too convinced that it's anything. However, I'm sure that they've landed on the moon in order for us to capture a photo of them, to prove that they exist.

We know that governments have devoted entire departments toward airbrushing space photos that have UFO's in them.

-Josh

i was going to comment on something along those lines.
Weather these structures are artificial or natural, it does not excuse the fact that there is massive amount of proof that images taken of the moon have been heavily tampered with.

This obviously shows that there is something on the moon someone does not want us to know about, im not saying aliens or little green men or anything im just pointing out that Nasa is keeping secrets when regarding the moon.

Don't know if this has been in this thread........but.......


This video (3.54 mins long).....says some interesting things about official images from the moon
being 'doctored'??? Link >>>>>>> HERE

Please let me begin by apologizing if you felt the joke question was offending in any way - that was not the intention.



I am sorry, but that is still not good enough. To counter, I could say that all the images taken from the moon negates your claim. But that doesn't really make for a good discussion, does it?!



Yes, possibly ET on the moon. So where is ET?! Just because a psychic has seen ET on the moon doesn't mean anything. Come up with the where as well and we can start looking at the imagery from that part of the moon and see if anything fits your theory - until then, it is, by all means of respect, just hot air.



No, you brought it up. You reference the relevant parts and they we will look at them and then form our opinion. We cannot sift through a whole book and then try and second guess where you think your claims are substantiated.



And this is where you fail - miserably at that. You substantiate your claim specifically and until you do so, you have nothing - pardon my candor.



Utter nonsense. Apparently you have no idea of how logic reasoning works and how to substantiate a claim. Lets be very blunt regarding your claim:

Where is this base on the moon?!
Where does it say in the book?!
And how does the author substantiate his claims?!

3 quoted paragraphs with page numbers referenced. Can you deliver?!



See above!



Well, waffling is not being able to reference the specific paragraphs pertaining to this discussion.



It is not my job to guess what you consider proof for your claim. But as you refuse to reference even a single paragraph as relevant to your claim, I will conclude that neither your claims nor the book is worth anymore time. It's up to you to prove me wrong.



By even discussing this with you should prove I am pretty open minded.



Yet, any remote viewer has yet to prove her or himself in the scientific world. You show me a scientific paper published in a peer reviewed paper and then we can discuss his so-called abilities. Until then, well...



See above (=nonsense).



No, the book is there for you to reference from.



I have no idea nor do I care. If you would have noticed, I don't venture into the fields of what I personally consider utter ludicrous. I have no need to spend my time on that.



I agree!

Cheers,
Badeskov

Four different space agencies have been or is photographing the lunar surface extensively - are they all in on the conspiracy?! No, in my opinion this is simply *cough*BS*cough*...

Cheers,
Badeskov

And that goes for all of the Governments that happen to have a space effort?! And all the professional and amateur astronomers as well?! Hmmm...and we know that how?!

Cheers,
Badeskov

Why would we waste our money on such drivel? When we know from hard science that it is not true. Boo ya.

How do you know its drivel ? Read it yet have we now lol and how can you waste money by downloading a pdf doc off the internet?

Luckily iam getting loads of pems from gratefull members giving it the thumbs up.

URV

now its me who has to ask ...is this a joke ? HAHAHAHAHA

You have already admited on this very forum you had never EVER heard of Ingo Swann Now you do a 360 degree u-turn and iam supposed to
believe your some sort of expert on the subject ?
My friend it is evident you know nothing about RV so stop pretending you know otherwise.
Please just leave the topic of RV well alone to stop further embarassment to yourself.
By all means dont read the book its a free world and you are entitled to your opinion however....
Iam just shocked at the level of ignorance displayed in some of these posts of yours and eric the debunker or whatever his name is.

My friend you have plenty of home work to do. Better get started

urv

yeop, bades got enough evidence right there. im sold!
he proves that what aaaaaall these people are saying is BS.
and that he must have some evidence to be able to call all these people liars as well.
im sure theyd like to hear from you and your explanation at their press conferences

Hehe, touche Of course I don't have any evidence, which I guess is actually rather saying. 5 agencies (yeah, I missed the Chinese Chang'e 1 lunar orbiter) are or have been photographing the lunar surface and no evidence of anything but lunar geology has ever surfaced. So my question remains: are all the space agencies in collusion and hides stuff on the moon?

Until then I guess my point is that the odds are highly stacked against anything being hidden or even being there.

Cheers,
Badeskov

are they ALL trying to keep in on the DL from their citizens? i couldnt tell you. but i just find it strange when many of these people are coming forward with it now. and will to testify underoath, infront of congress and what not, that what theyre saying is Actually true.
like i waaaant to believe what theyre saying. although i guess i have to be skepitcal with this

No, I agree, it is strange. But on the other hand I find it equally strange that numerous scientists are hunched over numerous images from the lunar surface (coming from numerous different countries) and yet nobody has reported anything out of the ordinary. I would guess that while some Governments might be able to cover something up, I would seriously doubt that all could.

And while there is nothing I would like to see more than sigh of ET on the moon, in my personal opinion I just find the odds stacked against it. And to be honest, I find that what has been put forth as substantiation has fallen far below what one should expect.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I claim no knowledge of Ingo Swann, nor do I claim an expert title in this field . But a very quick search reveals a lot, to be honest, even for a layman as I am in this field. Say, to make it easy, from Wiki:



Emphasis mine. That basically tells it all. You have no scientific basis whatsoever for your claims and unless you can find a scientific article stating otherwise, you are dealing in pseudoscience and it is (to shamelessly echo Eric), pure drivel.

By the way, the above is the correct way of substantiating a claim (by reference). I have yet to see you show a single, relevant reference. So far you have been hot air and nothing else.



Oh, I don't mind embarrassing myself. But so far you are the one embarrassing oneself - that is, until you can show a single shred of evidence for your claims.



Tell me about it. You have not been able to reference a single, relevant paragraph from this book, which is actually rather saying. I certainly wouldn't waste bandwidth on something like that until you can show that it has some relevance.



Not really, the ball is in your court - where it has been from your first post. Claims are fine, but if you can't substantiate them they are worthless. So, you open that all-knowing book of yours and find those paragraphs relevant to your claims.

Until then, you have nothing.

Cheers,
Badeskov