CONTINUATION OF THREAD: "Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SCIENCE? What Do You Now Of SCIENCE? "
JIMBO WROTE : Unrelated detail? Yes, I suppose my hand-on experience in the program and those of others that I still deal with are "unrelated."
Your "hands on" experience in "the program" involves electrical engineering, so you claim, and does not quality you as a space expert nor able to speak on what is actually done with the imagery and feeds from "the missions" AND for you to imply that you were involved in missions.. only makes me laugh. You seek to elevate yourself and an empty, pointless argument punctuated with repeatedly referencing "the Program" and other things in an off-hand manor as if you were intimate, yet..strangely .. you provide ZERO detail showing this intimacy and provide yourself a "smoke screen" by throwing about irrelevant nomenclature and out of context acronyms that have no pertinence to the discussion and which you give no relevance within even your own argument -- therefore these references are done to only fraudulently elevate yourself while your presentation remains without substance... and you are left only attempting to demean me with fraudulent characterizations and associations and picking on spelling errors (which are really typos) like some sad, overbearing school marm.
By the way, Jimbo, don't your words "..others that i still deal with.." imply that you are retired or no longer employed in.. "the program"? Were you KEYED INTO "the program" initially perhaps you yourself might yet ask Jim Oberg or others. By the way, if you were so intimate with "the Program" as you say, then you'd know that astronauts have spoken up, were in no way misquoted.. and one has recently published a book.
JIMBO WROTE : I addressed the points that deserved any comment
You havent addressed ANY POINTS at all! You have only rambled about unrelated detail of your electrical engineering background, which does NOT apply here whatsoever and attempted to impugn my numerous points and specifics by ugly means, never with any specifics yourself.
JIMBO WROTE : Check the thread. I ASKED if you were associated with those other areas. Primarily due to your obvious slant toward "conspiranoia". A common symptom.
You did not ASK anything; you implied that I was IN FACT associated with these other areas in a sad attempt to impugn and diminish me. NONE of what I show and present is "paranoia". It is HARD FACT with science and evidence supporting my conclusions. You simply are unable to accept nor even examine the TRUTHS that do exist, that conflict with your comfy paradigm of existance that you have accepted as de facto all the days of your life.
"Conspiranoia" is a term you've managed to create here, again with purpose of demeaning me and implying within it that our government is forthright and honest with us. You've made the point that our government could not hide things like Monica Lewinski nor "arms for hostages", yet these were things that were not of national security interest, could not start a panic, and Laws and personal objectives made the pursuit of publicizing these things an easily attainable objective. Would you not think there are persons in POWER that would INSIST things like "aliens next door" should be covered up for a plethora of reasons-- not the least of them being their opportunity for personal gain and cementing their power & control infrastructure? This, after all, is coined "The Information Age." INFORMATION and its control (spin) are the very foundations of Power. Your casting around of LABELS like "conspiranoia" is as equally disdainful as those claiming conspiracy without any reason to believe so nor without supporting evidence-- NEITHER you nor they have done any home work.
JIMBO WROTE : Do you know how many times I have heard this retraction from people who were screaming the "sky is falling". (re:Y2K)
Funny, I would *NOT* have expected that ONE who claims to be a worker at NASA.. 'scuse me.. the "PROGRAM" *cough*... would have among his friends those who are panic mongers and not technically inclined to *deal* with Y2K computer chip concerns and then move on. All my friends and contacts were more educated than to panic over the Y2K chip concerns and I have no idea to what you're referring.
JIMBO WROTE : Do you see a trend? Your "research" has you thinking I listen to the Art Bell show. The fact is I have only heard portions of it twice. Actually, I don't think he was even the host during those shows.
Only heard portions of the Art Bell radio programs TWICE, eh? and yet you are able to characterize the program by its commercials and long time sponsor, as you show stating, and I quote you "one of the Art Bell, crank up flashlight"? Seems your own attempt to impugn has come about and bit you on the arse, eh?
RE: "ART BELL" RADIO PROGRAM-
YES I *AM* an occasional listener to the Art Bell radio program, currently known as "Coast To Coast AM" . This program, as other news and media sources, can equally be a source for Information as well as garbage; they key is to apply your own intelligence and scrutiny to that information. I do listen specifically to C2Cam for Richard Hoagland, "Enterprise Mission" , for any additions he and others might have to add regarding the Mars imagery and related issues. Hoagland was the first to make the "Tubes" public on this C2C program and, I believe, his personal pressures on NASA are responsible for the re-imaging of Cydonia and "The Face". These "Tubes" are 140+ yard diameter vitreous, glassy, semi-transparent tubes with somewhat regularly spaced supporting arches which traverse the Martian surface and center on a tri-radiate rift fracture. I discuss these "Tubes" on my web site and recognize detail that escaped Hoagland, such as the associated vents. My web site, Mars UnEarthed
, enumerates some 9 detailed reasons why these tubes can only be artificial constructs and not natural features.
You want "DETAILS"..they are there on my web site and you will find them there as on no other site on the web.
I email Richard Hoagland and his partner and web Master Michael Bara at times on a weekly basis, sometimes daily when dealing with specific issues. I have corrected Hoagland's misstatements on such things as identifying a formation as additional "tubes" when they this formation was, in fact, p-waves, or pressure compressive waves on the surface of a lava flow running perpendicular to flow direction (which we see here on Earth in ropey, pahoehoe lava flows) AND identifying a feature as an alien construct when it was in fact the shiny rills of a water body refracting sunlight on the surface beneath it.
JIMBO WROTE : Well sir, in science we do things a bit differently. The remarkable claimer has the burden of proof. You have offered none. And that which you think is PROOF is purely false or coincidental. One MIGHT call it EVIDENCE. But again, in science it takes pretty good evidence for remarkable claims. I think aliens having a base on a planet (or moon) in our solar system is quite remarkable
And carry through on that "Burden Of Proof" is just what my web site Mars UnEarthed endeavors to fulfill...
Jimbo, actually while an engineering degree requires you are trained in science and physics laws, it does not make you a scientist nor versed in the protocols of science and analysis of data -- unless of course you have your name on some original patent. I work with electrical and structural engineers, and none of them would leap to calling themselves a "scientist" Meanwhile my background and training as a Geologist requires me to be trained in Geology, Geochemistry, Physics, Geophysics and has led me to in depth studies of Astronomy and also.. Archaeology. I deal in everything from visual recognition of rocks, soils and minerals to raw chemical concentration data on constituents in parts per million and parts per billion.. I survey extensive sites using varied geophysical methods and apply these data results to extrapolating and/or interpreting known lithologies and strata over extensive regions, often apply many more widely divergent methodologies in the process. Regularly i am required to interpret paleo (ancient) depositional and morphologic environments and conditions from borehole and core sampling and apply them to the situation at hand. I use science every single day and then am responsible for applying and demonstrating a *grasp* of that science and what the results imply from the evidence of the details to making accurate conclusions and often recommendations for action. I have been a contracted consultant and representative for the Federal E.P.A and state environmental agencies.
You might be surprised that "Image Analysis' is indeed a SCIENCE and you can be degreed in that science. I myself am trained in analysis of geology and geomorphology in a wide variety of imaging techniques. I am also an expert in imaging and digital image analysis and have examined all the imagery from mars on a pixel-by-pixel basis before presentation on my site.
Yes, indeed, the thought of aliens having a "base" on a planet next to our own,in our solar system is beyond doubt a stunning concept. However at no time do i refer to "aliens" or make such predisposed "leaps" with such prejudiced jargon as "a base" and all the associated under riding implications that go along with such colored nomenclature. Use of such words is not "science" and is only imaginings inflamed by SCI-FI mentality, which you appear to leap to. I show on my web site Mars UnEarthed
that there are numerous undeniable artificial structures with some showing characteristics of immediate, current ACTIVITY (currently in use). These structures INVARIABLY have associated with them numerous supporting details indicating their physical nature. These details often corroborate one another and support extended conclusions as to the nature of the structures and their non-natural origins. These details supporting one another make it impossible for them to be "coincidental", as you say. AGAIN, I reiterate, "The Devil is in the Details", meaning that without attention to and regard for the details and a fundamental familiarization with what is "normal" can you even begin to recognize what is aberrant in nature, or abnormal -- but then you seem to avoid detail with great enthusiasm and consistency.
I do not believe i am the first to be aware of a presence on Mars. I am simply taking stunning evidence that is available in raw form with the accreditation of a National organization which collected this information (NASA, previously known by you as "The PROGRAM"), and presenting it with analysis, where appropriate. Again, NOWHERE do I mention "aliens" nor leap to conclusions of there being aliens. I DO and WILL state here that I DO NOT believe that the undeniable presence evident on Mars is "US"; I do not believe we posses the technology to reach Mars and also create the startling engineering feats that are present there. Therefore, whomever is there is NOT "us" and point of fact MUST per force of simple logic be "someone else".
Your failure to recognize what is on Mars and desperate rush to dismiss these clearly artificial constructs as "blurs", outright "FALSE" (WHY?) and "coincidental" and natural features shows only your overwhelming personal need to cling to predisposed conclusions and a total failure in image analysis.
JIMBO WROTE : There are an infinite number of possible images of mars. You have selected a handful that with some imagination "look" like something recognizable. You choose to ignore all others. Since "NASA" fakes them. A catch 22 don't you think?
I select images to be presented on Mars UnEarthed that show conclusive evidence of non-natural, indeed artificial constructs, some of which are in current use. I do NOT "ignore all other" images. In fact I present images that show undeniable presence of "fluid bodies" (water) on Mars surface; this information is currently to be included in a scientific paper and my work has led to that paper's total revamping. I also am amassing other imagery that show stunning yet NATURAL occurences, geologically and chemically speaking on the Mars surface to be presented elsewhere. There are also images with such disturbing implications that I will not present them publicly until a much later time, perhaps never. I do not ignore the other images from Mars, In fact I review and consider *EVERY* image possible..a somewhat daunting and intimidating task, given the sheer volume of imagery.. yet this is what my goal is.
In fact, NOWHERE on my site do I make any statement regarding image alteration or "altering" nor do i imply a conspiracy to cover up any of what is on Mars by NASA. I have seen no evidence of any such altering or cover up. ... HOWEVER, had you spent time examining *THE DETAILS* you would know this yourself. By the way, you're not implying that NASA has altered this imagery to *ADD* the constructs, ARE YOU? That would be.. ridiculous.
Oh yes, you should REALLY get a better grasp of the term "Catch 22" before you attempt to use it in writing.
I WROTE : None of the images I present from Mars are "blurry" nor "faked".
JIMBO REPLIED : I never said they were. They are samples of what randomness can provide you when you look for things.
NONE of what i present on my site shows any "randomness" at all. In FACT what among the details which define these features as "non-natural" in there strong deviation from topography is their often defined geometric shape and clearly "NON-RANDOM" layout. The features I present as artificial constructs show complex compound curves with a plane of symmetry, numerous parallel arcs and curves, line and form that deviate abruptly from the topography and rise high above the surface often with rectilinear angles, abrupt precipitous cylindrical risings from the topography and many, many other features you do not find ANYWHERE in NATURAL topography here .... or on Mars.
RANDOM ABSTRACT SHAPES?
Stunning Martian Features
I DID NOT go to the Mars imagery to "look for things" of an artificial nature. I went there as a GEOLOGIST hoping to learn more of Mars' geology from the satellite imagery.. Prior to June of Last year I was as yourself, believing there was no conclusive proof of "others" in the cosmos. What i found was strong, startling evidence of an ongoing presence on Mars that threw me into a personal confusion as a result of all my PARADIGMS , both personal and scientific, being suddenly thrown into turmoil by what i could not deny in this imagery.
You might be surprised to know that I received an ADVANCED notice of the posting of these images onto the web from numerous friends in NASA and its spin-off companies, like U.S.A (United Space Alliance)responsible for shuttle operations (and has been renamed but i cant recall the new name at moment)and elsewhere. You also might be surprised to know that NASA itself is well aware of what these images DO SHOW, and were you traveling in high enough circles in NASA and/or its subsidiary spin-offs you might know this yourself.
I WROTE : "... Jimbo, it sounds here like you are suggesting that NASA ITSELF is altering imagery and adding features to give the appearance of artificial constructs, but this would be totally irrational. "
JIMBO WROTE : Yes, wouldn't it? Of course, I never said that, did I? "Totally irrational" would be NASA releasing images that "prove" your claim while for 50 years the gov and NASA have made it the best kept secret in history. ..... Yes, interesting that NASA would make all those images so freely available when they are so telling, isn't it?
First off, I am glad you are finally able to admit that these images are indeed, quote, "So telling".
The imagery shows what it shows.. and provided the imagery is validated as authentic and unaltered, then what remains is to subject this imagery to objective, rational evaluation. Simply because what the imagery shows seems to you to be "unreasonable" in your previous paradigms is no reason to discount and mislabel this imagery. Jimbo, You claim you use "Science" yet HERE you would have us DENY what exists because it conflicts with all that you "KNOW" to exist. You would *PRESUME* that what is in the imagery "CAN NOT BE THERE" simply because *YOU* cannot *grasp* yourself WHY NASA would CHOOSE to release such revealing imagery to the public -- ERGO you rationalize that what *IS* THERE in the imagery MUST NOT BE! You have so much to learn about science..and the reality of your past and what *IS*. What you present is not SCIENCE, but a view of reality that puts your "KNOWING" as the center of REALITY --- akin to believing the solar system revolves around the EARTH.
INDEED, you should be asking yourself *WHY* NASA would release such imagery...and what it *MEANS*..for what the imagery shows IS indeed real and may very well be changing your life in the near future.
JIMBO WROTE : But you don't use your real name? Interesting.
My real name and surname are on my web site, Mars UnEarthed , where appropriate regarding my personal discoveries. I am known by persons, peers and co-workers in the Geology profession by my nick name, Tripp, and by my Christian name by clients. I DO NOT attach my name to the web site in a prominent fashion to make myself famous. This Mars IMAGERY I present and the work i DO is presented because i STRONGLY BELIEVE we should *ALL* know *THE TRUTH* of what is there and begin to learn the "Truth" of our past.
I WROTE : THE CHALLENGE TO JIMBO: EXPLAIN TO ME HOW AND WHY IT IS REASONABLE FOR NASA TO HAVE THREE ASTRONAUTS ON THE MOON DURING *ANY* APOLLO MOON LANDING...
JIMBO's ANSWER : " There were two."
Jimbo, I really EXPECTED you to have something far more enlightening than merely "two" as an explanation, given your response initially to image http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.trio.jpg being, and I quote you, "Oh please. Get recent. Yes, and this is SO obvious and NASA released it anyway.
I'd hoped your explanation was "so obvious" that you would quickly enlighten us and remove the major discrepancy this image presents. INSTEAD, you are so challenged by this image that you fail to provide any info and cannot simply COUNT the number of astronauts represented in the image. It would seem to me that recognizing and counting human forms in an image taken at a standard viewing angle at optimal imaging distance would be a simple thing for one claiming to be a "researcher", yet apparently not!
IN TRUTH there are THREE (3) astronauts in the image http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.trio.jpg. The table below enumerates these astronauts and the are similarly pointed out in the enlarged image attached at the end of this posting.
Astronaut #1 is the astronaut taking the photograph and is reflected in the center of the sun visor on the photographed astronaut. The photograph is taken from a chest mounted Hasselblad camera; incidentally, these cameras had no view finder.
Astronaut #2 is reflected on the left side of the visor, further back and closer to the horizon. Astronaut #2 is standing beside the base of one of the LM's (Lunar Module's) legs. His left leg is shadowed by his right leg.
Astronaut #3 is the direct subject of the photo taken by Astronaut #1 and it is in his sun visor drawn down on his helmet that we see the other two astronaut's reflected.
««Click HERE to view
All 3 Astronauts»»
Jimbo, I really expected an explanation that amounted to your expression of "insider info" and perhaps explaining some "Secret Mission" whereby three astronauts were secreted to the moon surface on the second moon landing, Apollo 12. However even this dismissal would have severe problems: Those of us aware of the Apollo moon landings know that Houston refused to fire the boosters on the LM prior to lift-off from the moon surface to remove icing on those boosters, fearing they would not have adequate fuel to achieve orbit and also there was a similar fear that moon rock samples would have added too much additional weight to achieve lift-off, so this being "true", how would they have reasonably gotten a third Man on the moon? Next plausible explanation was that this image was not from the moon itself, but from a sound stage on earth where the astronauts "practiced" maneuvers for the actual moon landing..... yet WHY would they desire to take the time to make a photograph from this sound stage then?
Jimbo, this returns us to the initiation of this thread between you and I : SCIENCE. How can ONE claiming to be a "researcher" so deliberately mis-count something so simple as clearly evident as human forms in an image? BEYOND DOUBT, you have shown that either you are severely "image challenged" or that your have no objectivity and your desire to prove a result and DISPROVE another's conclusion is so overwhelming that you would try to present THREE objects as only "TWO."
"SCIENCE" in any form has two major tenets 1)OBSERVATION and 2)OBJECTIVITY in recognition of detail. Quite clearly you have failed in one or both these two tenets inherent in the application of "science" and necessary to be an honest "researcher." Your evidenced brow beating of those posing questions on this bulletin board and making statements shuch as "there is no proof" is not true nor honest. The fact of the matter is that there is an overwhelming abundance of "Proofs" ranging from those which are current and immediate to those proofs going back to ancient times. You simply disregard these proofs because they do not serve your belief system and you fail to examine them.
The image of 3 Astronauts on the moon is a major discrepancy of known "truth" from readily apparant fact of the image itself and as such requires a more detailed questioning of what is going on.
If you are going to continue to hold yourself out as a "researcher" in the future, I heartily suggest you..... get with "the program" .....and begin to do some serious research and not just be an off the cuff skeptic; your pompous broad stroked dismissals serve nothing and no one but your own ego at this point, certainly not Science nor Truth.
Any time you wish to discuss or debate details, I'm more than willing to engage.. but let's leave the aspersion behind, eh?
THREE Astronauts On Moon!
ORIGINAL IMAGE (From NASA Site): http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.trio.jpg