The monolith is a pretty interesting pic I haven't seen before. Is there other pics of it?

The elongated skull though is just a result of head binding which is an ancient people practice found around the world. We humans have been doing odd body modifications for a very long time. We are a strange species.

Speaking of heads...

speaking of pareidolia

Why did you make a blurry square in the photo?

Wrong. There are specimens found in Peru which has the cranial capacity over twice that of a regular human. Head binding cannot increase the volume of the head, it can only shape it. What if head binding was used by primitive people to imitate some other lineage of humans?

Source?

I don't think that head binding is involved in this one. This is a pic of that "alien" from the Sirius documentary.

I've seen the aerial shot OP posted before. It's all out there, this isn't really that 'new'.

Tbh, I don't usually follow the interplanetary structures thing. It's a neat pic. If you could point me to more I'd like to look into a little further.

Best thing I can tell you is YouTube. That's how I discovered it. Additional the castle picture looks like a Rover of some type took it, but I believe satellites generally don't take horizon shots of the moon. Just seems, off. Compared to the plethora of other moon pictures. My opinion of course.

I always assumed the blurred parts of those pics were due to transmission problems for that part from whatever was sending the pics. The pics are sent to earth 1 war, no opportunity to ask for replacement or resent data packets.

The castle thing on the bottom is wild, never seen or heard that before.

First time I've gotten shivers on conspiracy in a long time. NASA must know some crazy things.

Three separate incidences of ISS live feed cut when UFOs appear:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=b7tlUS6bx04

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2920426/Nasa-cuts-live-ISS-video-feed-UFO-hovers-sight-Conspiracy-theorists-claim-space-agency-hiding-alien-life.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/nation-now/2016/07/14/nasa-space-international-space-station-ufo-live-feed-cut-internet-theories/87070452/

There might be more but these are the three I remember most. These UFOs (or whatever they are) may or may not be of alien origin, but I have a feeling these are intentional cuts of the live feed.

Dumb question, how come no country has a satellite orbiting the moon? Gravity pull too light to maintain an orbit I suppose? Or just not profitable?

They do. There are at least four, maybe more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THEMIS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang%27e_5-T1

Whoa, I did not know. Thanks for the info. Got some reading to do.

I can bullshit. How do you suppose we can see all these celestial bodies in the sky, but can't see those or any satellites on a telescope? And there are supposedly thousands of those up there. Really?

You can, it's just super hard to track something moving that fast. Go get a cheap telescope and aim it at the moon, then try to follow a single crater or point of interest. It's extremely hard with out motorised stands etc. Everything is moving independently at incredible speeds. It's hard enough to follow a crater on the moon the size of an island. Satellites aren't much bigger than a car.

Caught the ISS once with my 8 inch reflector completely by accident. Was awesome, saw solar panels and everything. Couldn't track it for a even a whole second though

Oh, word?

Get out of the city, I can watch the clear night sky and see satellites flying by with the naked eye.

Hilarious that you can see a pretty good picture of whatever that thing is on Mars but there are no good pictures of the Apollo landing sites, from anyone.

Where all the satellites at in those ISIS videos?

Most likely because we don't really have any reason to spend millions on imaging devices to see the surface of the Moon (which we sadly don't care about very much any more). There are some great images here though.

Ah, the LRO images always crack me up with how they are blurry indiscernible proof of absolutely nothing.

"There are no pictures of the landing sites."

*is shown pictures of the landing sites

"Yeah but those pictures of the landing sites are dumb and I hate them."

Why would I count obviously fabricated "pictures" which come from the same government organization that hoaxes the moon landings and the dozens of ridiculous photos that went along with that in the first place?

China has sent a few Lunar orbiters. Where are the images from Chang'e 2? Why not just point whatever took this photo on Mars at the moon?

I had a longer reply but I found this and it was just too perfect.

http://english.cas.cn/newsroom/china_research/201202/t20120207_81106.shtml

Relevant paragraph:

The scientists also spotted traces of the previous Apollo mission in the images, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China's lunar exploration project.

Cue you backtracking and claiming they're part of the cover up.

It's easy to "spot traces" of something you're convinced is definitely there. One tends to fit the evidence to the supposition.

It's also easy to dismiss evidence that you don't want to be true, because you've convinced yourself that it's not true dispite the evidence.

Such as the clear and obvious images of tire tracks and the lander from space which are corroborated by the Chinese and not disputed by the Russians, who both would benefit from embarrassing the US.

So where does that leave us?

I've seen the images, and sure, they seem to evidence some kind of trail that's claimed to be the footsteps of the astronauts. They claim some other objects are one thing or another, but they're so ill-defined that I don't find that aspect to be useful. So, we have the trails. I suppose that would be enough for me if there weren't so many other holes in the story that really need to be answered reasonably before a second-hand blurry photograph of what appears to be a trail really adds any information. I really doubt that the chinese space agency is that far removed from NASA; it seems likely to me that they collaborate, so why not doctor it? Why won't NASA answer the myriad questions that seem to suggest the moon landing at that time was an impossibility with anything more than name calling?

I really don't know what to think about the moon landing, but what I do notice is that everyone who claims it did happen seems to think it beneath them to offer any kind of real explanation for the questions being asked, and those who are doubting it have compiled a shit ton.

Cause it's tiring to continually argue that we've been there done that. We're looking at going to Mars in the next 30 years or so. And planning on launching the most powerful telescope yet seen in 2018.

It's like some people want to lag behind the curve of technology protesting that it was impossible for us to accomplish what we did half a century ago.

We we we we, were you personally involved in any way?

After a fashion. You and I both belong to the human race. We both benefit from the advances we've made from scraping the surface of the cosmos.

Also it's beneficial to our race as a whole to find a way to get off this rock. Extinction is bound to happen sooner or later otherwise.

That's not to mention that I have been directly impacted due to space flight due to what my parents did for a living.

But hey you can keep demeaning the accomplishments of the human race collectively, if you want.

Firing progressively more complex fireworks into space and having some of them not blow up isn't that much of an achievement in the grand scheme of things.

If lies were told about these relatively big accomplishments or if greater accomplishments have been achieved in secret then that would demean your collective, would it not?

Niggas need to read their Sherlock Holmes and motherfuckin Poirot... how does a lunar module being there in 2000 whatever prove it was there in 1969 smdh...

NASA probably hooked it up to one of their UFOs and dropped it off once the coast was clear. Or sent the schematics up to the moon base.

Don't even bother with this guy. It's obvious once he gets mind made up he's not going to consider any proof. If he decided he wasn't real, looking in the mirror would be a faked image and a conspiracy to deny his nonexistence.

I'm not backtracking; I've been saying they are part of the cover-up the entire time. Where are these "traces" of the Apollo missions? Nowhere.

We didn't go then like we can't go now. If you're not a shill this is the point you realize there's actually no proof we went and gee, you're having to try a lot harder than you would if the moon landing were real.

Fortunately I'm one of the increasing minority of Americans who actually does know enough about radiation to know we couldn't have gone, and to take one look at this and know it's a fake piece of junk sitting on a set, not a state of the art space craft on the most complex and impressive mission in human history.

So it's already obvious enough we didn't go to the moon, I don't really even need one of the Apollo 12 astronuts entirely giving it away that he's obviously been lying and he never went to the moon, but of course it is still amusing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2FTZhyuJy8

I lived my entire life in a city that has a Saturn V used for testing in a museum.

We've been to the moon. Several times. Learned lots too.

But I can tell truly arguing with you is pointless. It'd be like arguing with a flat-earther.

So I'll leave you with this.

Image

Mobile

Title: Moon Landing

Title-text: Ok, so Spirit and Opportunity are pretty awesome. And Kepler. And New Horizons, Cassini, Curiosity, TiME, and Project M. But c'mon, if the Earth were a basketball, in 40 years no human's been more than half an inch from the surface.

Comic Explanation

Stats: This comic has been referenced 85 times, representing 0.0587% of referenced xkcds.

^{xkcd.com | xkcd sub | Problems/Bugs? | Statistics | Stop Replying | Delete}

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

No, you're on of the increasing minority of Americans that are showing the grow deficiency of education in this country and how easy people can be misled from partial understanding of a few things that they mistake as the complete picture and makes them know just enough to have certainty in being wrong.

Fortunately I'm one of the increasing minority of Americans who actually does know enough about radiation and physics to know we couldn't have gone,

Oooh perfect, since you "know enough about radiation and physics" surely you will be able to debunk for me the widely understood and accepted radiation physics behind the Van Allen Radiation Belts?

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

Please be thorough. This link shows all of the work and is very comprehensive. Please explain why and how it is incorrect point by point.

A quick TL;DR for the spectators:

The outermost edge of the outermost VARB is about ~20,000km above the Earth. The Apollo spacecrafts speed through the VARB regions was ~25,000km/hr. Due to the structures of the belts, the regions with the highest concentrations of radiation can by avoided. Due to these factors, plus the radioactive shielding of the craft, the total dose of radiation sustained by all Apollo missions was <~2 rads, with the majority being <0.6 rads, during the ~hour long transit through the belts. OSHA defines a lethal dose of radiation to be 300 rads/hr. The amount of radiation sustained by the astronauts through the VARBs was so small as to be negligible.

Oh, a braeunig link. Never seen anyone unable to make an argument about the moon landings simply link to that site to let shills do their thinking for them before.

I missed it, but Bart Sibrel who shot "A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Moon" did an AMA here a while back that has some good reading and a good video link on the hoax. link

I'm almost certain get have been able to take hi res photos of the moon and anywhere damn else they please for at least a half a century. Even if the moon is just dust why can't we see the same pictures they see? Why do they have that power?

Do you have a source that they can do that?

Sure. https://youtu.be/7Clbn3zgsRs

Hmm🤔

Buzz Aldrin has gone on air on CSpan to claim there is a monument on Mars

False statement. He said that there is a "monolith", not a monument. Very important difference. A giant rock sticking out in the landscape is a monolith. Monument implies a deliberately created structure.

They're already taken a better look at it (in analysis, if not picture). They're mostly certain that it's a chunk of rock that broke off from the bedrock, and it's about 5 meters across. "An unremarkable boulder". Our brains are wired to see patterns in things.

The same way that it happens here all over the place.

And ya, sure, it looks like it has a flat face in the tiny handful of photos that we have, taken from hundreds of kilometers above the surface, but that can also be just a trick of the light.

And no, there are no photos of it closeup enough to show anything that could be writing. Show me if i'm wrong.

Don't get me wrong, i'd love to fly a ship by and get better pictures of it. Love these kinds of things, but this one is just a rock.

Don't get me wrong, i'd love to fly a ship by and get better pictures of it. Love these kinds of things, but this one is just a rock.

Unfortunately that is just conjecture, as much as any other opinion on it, until further information is gathered. If you don't want people spreading misinformation, please do not do it yourself.

Right, fine. There's vastly more evidence that it is just a rock, rather than, say, an alien monolith, which has 0% evidence. Speculation isn't evidence, as you say.

I don't think I even remotely implied any of that.

Mm.. if you say so, but that's how it read.

The Peter Venkman?

This is some next level ignorance.

Look at that shadow. If it's 5m across, it's standing about 30 to 40m, pretty damn straight

Can't just rely on one photo is all.

Kubrick must have been on some far out shit.

Or told by Arthur C. Clarke / NASA / other societies.

Speaking of elite pedos

Kubrick was well versed in Gnosticism. 2001 is actually about The Matrix. HAL is The Simulation. HAL was created to assist Dave Bowman (mankind) but becomes overly sentient and tries to destroy him..

H -> I

A -> B

L -> M

"HAL" means Simulation. http://realitysandwich.com/411/trap_simulation/

Interesting read. I wasn't disputing that HAL references a simulation. I was showing a cipher whereby you move to the next letter in the alphabet for each letter in HAL and yield IBM. IBM produces (more so during the time of Kubrick than today) the machines that create virtual reality simulations discussed in the article you linked.

It is interesting because it fits both scenarios. I personally feel 2001 was a hidden expose on the Simulated Universe. Kubrick did a similar feat with The Shining which was loaded with hidden symbols pertaining to the space program he was working with. The brilliant Jay Weidner has done extensive work on all of this.

The obelisk is on the moon Phobos which orbits Mars. FYI

Hey!

Don't forget about the famous Phobos 2 incident in 1989.

In July 1988, the Russians launched two unmanned satellite probes - Phobos 1 and Phobos 2 - in the direction of Mars, and with the primary intention of investigating the planet's mysterious moon, Phobos. Phobos 1 was unfortunately lost en route two months later, reportedly because of a radio command error.

Phobos 2 was also ultimately lost in the most intriguing circumstances, but not before it had beamed back certain images and information from the planet Mars itself.

Phobos 2 arrived safely at Mars in January 1989 and entered into an orbit around Mars as the first step at its destination towards its ultimate goal: to transfer to an orbit that the would make it fly almost in tandem with the Martian moonlet called Phobos (hence the spacecrafts name) and explore the moonlet with highly sophisticated equipment that included two packages of instruments to be placed on the moonlet's surface.

All went well until Phobos 2 aligned itself with Phobos, the Martian moonlet.

Then, on 28th March, the Soviet mission control center acknowledged sudden communication "problems" with the spacecraft; and Tass, the official Soviet news agency, reported that,

"Phobos 2 had failed to communicate with Earth as scheduled after completing an operation yesterday around the Martian moon Phobos. Scientists at mission control have been unable to establish stable radio contact." What had caused the Phobos 2 spacecraft to be lost?

According to Boris Bolitsky, science correspondent for Radio Moscow, just before radio contact was lost with Phobos 2, several unusual images were radioed back to Earth, described by the Russian as "Quite remarkable features".

A report taken from New Scientist of 8 April 1989, described the following:

"The features are either on the Martian surface or in the lower atmosphere. The features are between 20 and 25 kilometers wide and do not resemble any known geological formation. They are spindle - shaped and proving to be intriguing and puzzling." An unusual photo of a thin shadow across mars (below left) was shown on the Russian television segment.

Seen on the surface of Mars was a clearly defined dark shape that could indeed be described, as it was in he initial dispatch from Moscow, as a "thin ellipse" (this photo is a still from the Soviet television clip).

It was certainly different from the shadow of Phobos recorded eighteen years earlier by Mariner 9. The latter cast a shadow that was a rounded ellipse and fuzzy at the edges, as would be cast by the uneven surface of the moonlet.

The 'anomaly' seen in the Phobos 2 transmission was a thin ellipse with very sharp rather than rounded points (the shape is known in the diamond trade as a "marquise") and the edges, rather than being fuzzy, stood out sharply against a kind of halo on the Martian surface.

Dr. Becklake described it as "something that is between the spacecraft and Mars, because we can see the Martian surface below it," and stressed that the object was seen by both the optical and the infrared (heat seeking) camera.

All these reasons explain why the Soviets have not suggested that the dark, "thin ellipse" might have been a shadow of the moonlet.

While the image was held on the screen, Dr. Becklake explained that it was taken as the spacecraft was aligning itself with Phobos (the moonlet). "As the last picture was halfway through," he said, "they [Soviets] saw something that should not be there." The Soviets, he went on to state, have not yet released this last picture, and we wont speculate on what it shows.

So what was it that collided or crashed into Phobos 2? Was the space probe shot out of space for "seeing too much"? What does the last secret frame show? Well... Cosmic Conspiracies have managed to track down this elusive last picture (below right).

In his careful words to 'Aviation Week and Space Technology', the chairman of the Soviet equivalent of NASA, referred to the last frame, saying, "One image appears to include an odd-shaped object between the spacecraft and Mars." This "highly secret" photo was later given to the Western press by Colonel Dr. Marina Popovich, a Russian astronaut and pilot who has long been interested in UFO's.

At a UFO conference in 1991, Popovich gave to certain investigators some interesting information that she "smuggled" out of the now ex-Soviet Union. Part of the information was what has been called "the first ever leaked accounts of an alien mother ship in the solar system".

The very last picture taken by Phobos 2 The last transmission from Phobos 2 was a photograph of a gigantic cylindrical spaceship - a huge, approx, 20km long, 1.5km diameter cigar-shaped 'mother ship', that was photographed on 25 March 1989 hanging or parked next to the Martian moon Phobos by the Soviet unmanned probe Phobos 2.

After that last frame was radio-transmitted back to Earth, the probe mysteriously disappeared; according to the Russians it was destroyed - possibly knocked out with an energy pulse beam.

The cigar shaped craft in the penultimate frame taken by Phobos 2 is apparently the object casting the oblong shadow on the surface of Mars in the earlier photo.

Australian science writer Brian Crowley says that because of the convex cats eye shadow - which, because the overhead solar inclination prevented shadow-casting by Martian surface features, implies a shadow thrown on the surface from something in orbit - beyond the orbit of Phobos 2 itself.

The shadow - spindle- or cigar shaped - is inconsistent with any possible shadow cast by the moon Phobos, which is an irregular potato shape.

The photos:

1

2

Sergeant Karl Wolf speaking at the Disclosure presentation in 2001 -

Base on the Moon

thank you for your contribution!

Take it the last photo was never shown to the public?

Yes it was http://forgetomori.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/phobos_last.jpg

Is there any specific reason that Phobos looks like someone took a chunk out of it? Or a potato? Just an odd shape that surprised me.

It's basically just an asteroid that got caught in orbit around Mars, so it's shape isn't anything surprising. Mars' other moon is a similar odd shape, and many small moons around the solar system have irregular shapes.

No idea mate. Maybe hit by something at some point? Or maybe it used to be an asteroid itself?

Awesome. They certainly did not want the surface of Mars to be seen..

Doesn't look like anything to me.

I'd like to erect a tower in Uranus.

Rekt

Okay don't crucify me on this but how are there buildings on the moon? What happened to the uncrossable van Allen belt?

Who's to say our species built them?

Where are these buildings?

The moon is our ancestral space craft.

Sorry I don't have any change

"Ahhh!" Said the monk. :But, the change must come from within!"

Eh, David Wilcock is, for a lack of better words, a shill. And by that I mean a shiester. Vast majority of those ancient alien guys are full of it (von Daniken was imprisoned for fraud I believe). They know there are a lot of imaginative people out there who want to believe and they know how to make $$ of that.

I myself am a believer and I don't discount the possibility of the moon/Mars hosting extraterrestrial life of some sort (or the remains of such). It's quite possible. But you don't need to pay David Wilcock or any of those other theorists to explore the possibilities (though I do respect Giorgio Tsoukalous). Plenty of free research out there.

I read a couple of his books and I'm inclined to agree. Just too divergent from every other narrative to take seriously; what gives him the privilege of such unique insight?

Hit me with your thoughts on this: NASA and the moon landing are cover ups. Not hoaxes, cover ups. We had tech to take hi res photos for a long ass time. They know the secrets to the moon and Mars. Form NASA, fake a moon landing, shut down NASA and declare "nothing to see here, move along"

Hmmm, But what about the russians? After all those were a dick measuring contest time. The russians could perfectly land on the moon (I kind of believe that they actually did once) since they had better experiences than the young NASA, and could easily send a men a die.

Good point. I'm not sure about the Russians. I know u/mr dong has a post in this thread about the Russians. I wish we all had access to the same information. Instead we are left to guess

The Russians were monitoring the Apollo mission. If it had been a hoax they'd been ALL over it. Anything to discredit the American space program at the height of the cold war.

Yeah I'm gonna need proof we've even been to the moon first to beleive any of this garb.

is all bs. space travel is all fantasy. we live on planet hoax.

Amen

This was one of my favorite conspiracies when I was younger. The spire on the moon. Then it was linked to a base like structure on the moon with a video of an Apollo astronaut walking through them. Video was too clear to be legitimate though.

I saw some show where they presented tons of photos of the moon surface and they kept highlighting in different colors these structure that they said proved there was an extensive base up their. And when you're guided by these false color highlights its much easier for mind to see these things that makes a lot more obvious. But its hard to tell if they are real or not.

That's the issue of discovering if it's real or not. I've seen some far fetched ideas that the moon is inhabited by Giants. The pictures were comical and doctored.

In a presentation, I'd prefer people he as factual and objective as possible. It's the best way to prove your conspiracy is real and not fictitious. Using different colors is just another way of the presenter to lead you or fool you into believe what they believe. Color me an overall skeptic.

This is just speculation and interpretation of evidence from a viewpoint. Biased analysis.

So, untill we look at it with crisp HD images and maybe proper analisys of these objects, analysis of the this should ramin on pure speculative level. Lets not descent into crazy conspiritard levels here people. In order for this sub to remain open for discussion of critical information we should take evidemce with grain of salt.

The monolith just looks like a rock or chunk of meteorite that happened to land in a way to cast a shadow because of a sharp edge. Same for the "structure" its just parralell lines, on earth we have earth and mountain/rock formations that also resembel parrallel channels formed through geological or environmental processes. So as long as there are multiple legit theories regarding this, we cant go around saying these are alien steuctures.

Great stuff op

Are these really roads on the moon?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz87SrkVJMc

Great post OP

apparently there are traces on water on the Rosetta comet:

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Rosetta_reveals_comet_s_water-ice_cycle

... so yea.. water is life. and there is trace water on the most random rock in the entire universe.

life is everywhere. there are probably trillions of alien species

I hear there's a tower on the moon.

TV is so fucking boring and things are becoming boring now that the elections are over.Please Trump, disclose the aliens so we can have some intresting Drama. I want something to circle jerk over.

This drama over trump winning the WH is pretty annoying now that we're going to be stuck with it for 30 years like there still is drama over Gore losing the white house.

This is great. Just more proof in my mind.

I am guessing there's something bad they are not telling us. Or NWO really is hoarding information.

Proof? Of what?

I was watching a live feed on youtube of a Florida telescope filming the moon. 11" reflector. I spotted a crater that had a line from the center to the outer rim. It cast a shadow and was definitely rising up towards the rim from the center mass in the crater. Where it touched the center was a large rounded shadow.

Once I get back to my PC I will add a screenshot to this comment

Not sure what it is but there is a very small chance that it could form from a meteor strike.

I did add the image. It is kind of washed out some from PC to phone to imgur. The dark line at 7 o'clock is the shadow of the structure I mentiond

Christ, this is stupid. These are artifacts from the photo stitching process. You don't think they just have a camera that's able to take an infinitely close resolution photo of ENTIRE swaythes of the moon in ONE shot, do you??

God.

Wrong. There are specimens found in Peru which has the cranial capacity over twice that of a regular human. Head binding cannot increase the volume of the head, it can only shape it. What if head binding was used by primitive people to imitate some other lineage of humans?

I don't think that head binding is involved in this one. This is a pic of that "alien" from the Sirius documentary.

Why would I count obviously fabricated "pictures" which come from the same government organization that hoaxes the moon landings and the dozens of ridiculous photos that went along with that in the first place?

China has sent a few Lunar orbiters. Where are the images from Chang'e 2? Why not just point whatever took this photo on Mars at the moon?

I've seen the aerial shot OP posted before. It's all out there, this isn't really that 'new'.

Interesting read. I wasn't disputing that HAL references a simulation. I was showing a cipher whereby you move to the next letter in the alphabet for each letter in HAL and yield IBM. IBM produces (more so during the time of Kubrick than today) the machines that create virtual reality simulations discussed in the article you linked.

I did add the image. It is kind of washed out some from PC to phone to imgur. The dark line at 7 o'clock is the shadow of the structure I mentiond