Dark Mission: NASA's dirty little secret.

[Guest]

Damn you, Old Fool,for outing me as an alien agent. Trouble,Genki and I will be dealing with that blabbermouth,ET. He never could hold his Twinkies, and he gets positively squirrely on Oreos. Looks like we will have to get with the other BigButts, RoseAnne and Rosie, and move up our time table to conquer the Earth.

Now, now, Pops...we had to out you guys. There is enough conspiracies fears going around. He just believes in going alien or not going at all. Once you go alien you never go back. Watch out for Rosie..she's an evil one. She may be a double agent. ET thinks she hotter than hell...some advanced civilization, huh?

 

[Kooldank]

if there was anything on the moon we would know by now.....


kooldank

 

[Babombeez]

Babombeez, hello, i have tried to engage in the topic of the thread, but you have not replied. did you read the last link i posted? what about the first posts regarding the moon-videos shown on tve?
paz

hey there paz...I did read about the NASA photos and the transcripts of the moon missions, and the link you provided was rather interesting... thanks again, sorry for not replying to you directly... I did not see the moon videos shown on tv...

thanks for contributing and for staying respectful.

Beez

 

[Babombeez]

if there was anything on the moon we would know by now.....


kooldank

are you making an argument here? Let me ask you if you know who controls what information NASA releases to the public... Are you aware that NASA works tightly with the Department of Defense; That any information of this nature is "highly sensitive" and is either sugar coated or completely altered, or hidden from the public completely...

Let me rephrase what you just said: "If there was anything on the Moon we would know by now."

DUH! What do you think all of these "whistleblowers" are telling us... that there are structures on the moon.

It is just a matter of empirical proof, since neither I nor you have gone to the moon and walked around.... and I would say it cannot either be proven or disproven unless another country, such as China, Japan, or India discover these ruins themselves and disclose it to the world...

The problem is that the mass majority of people on this planet haven't accepted this into consciousness, that there could be a great possibility of moon ruins....

By the way did anyone check out those links to the JPL site with the Mars pictures... seemed like everyone ignored looking at the pictures, I would post them up here but it seems they have encoded their pictures with some type of software which doesn't allow them to be uploaded, wierd... I am not surprised though...

My original post:

Ok, so here are two pictures taken off the JPL website, pictures from Mars...

According to Hoagland (and other sources, like Johnston, Carol Rosin, etc) say that NASA and JPL have long been altering their pictures to make it seem as though Mars has been a "dead planet," when in fact NASA miscalculated Mars atmosphere and destroyed a probe on entry because the atmosphere was way denser than they had thought....

So here are links to two pictures (JPL site), one on the JPL website is said to be "altered," and the other is normal, showing the typical, Martian landscape with the dreary red sky and life-less... This is not true, check it out. All JPL did was reverse the pictures, I work in photoshop and did color correction at a Corporate art distributor for 2 years, the normal picture looks like it is faked, too red, not enough contrast, just reversed. This supposed "altered" picture is actually the REAL photograph of Mars, while the "normal" picture, (red hue) is the color corrected one, posing to be the actual martian surface.... THIS IS A LIE!

Look at these pictures for yourself and see which one looks more "lifelike" to you....

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA10105 (supposed real, but ALTERED)

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA10104 (Supposed fake, but NOT ALTERED)

This is a prime example. Also, I found it interesting that when I went to upload these pics ICMAG wouldn't upload them, it kept having errors, something they encode their pictures with... I also have a policeman friend who was a private detective, he has computer software to import photos and it will have encoded information and all of this data on the picture, so anyways, you can tell with this software program if a picture has been altered in any way. I haven't talked to him about it yet, but I am going to see if I can take these files, since they are originally TIFFS, which contain all of the original information about the Camera and other things, and see if we can prove they are reversed... interesting, eh?

Beez

 

[Babombeez]

^^ No one has looked?

By the way Happy Thanksgiving!

Beez

 

[Guest]

Yeah, I looked. Nothing new about NASA faking photos. They got good at that in the 60's.

 

[newbgrow]

are you making an argument here? Let me ask you if you know who controls what information the catholic church releases to the public... Are you aware that the catholic church works tightly with the Illuminati; That any information of this nature is "highly sensitive" and is either sugar coated or completely altered, or hidden from the public completely...

Let me rephrase what you just said: "If there was flying spaghetti monster we would know by now."

DUH! What do you think all of these "whistleblowers" are telling us... that there are flying spaghetti monster on the moon.

It is just a matter of empirical proof, since neither I nor you have gone to the moon or seen a flying spaghetti monster.... and I would say it cannot either be proven or disproven unless another country, such as China, Japan, or India discover these ruins themselves and disclose it to the world... (which they never will)

The problem is that the mass majority of people on this planet haven't accepted this into consciousness, that there could be a great possibility of flying spaghetti monster....

Beez

Convincing...

 

[Babombeez]

Convincing...

Nothing intelligent to say, hey look its newbgrow!

so have you checked out the JPL Mars pictures yet?

Why do you continue to ignore this?


Beez

 

[newbgrow]

Ignore? I looked at the pictures a few times the first time you posted. I bet you copy & pasted that excerpt, because I doubt you have ever worked with photoshop... or cameras. Red hue? I don't see nothing of it. And I doubt they had SLR cameras with professionally staged lighting kits on Mars... Low contrast, what of it? If you ever taken a picture at night you'd know what it looks like. If you'd ever seen a movie shot in digital HD at night, you'd know low contrast is nothing.

Why don't you take some of your own advice and don't take everything you read as granted? What makes you think one picture was Photoshopped and not the other?

Nothing intelligent to say??? At least I write my own posts.

This is stupid Babombeez. You have never responded to even one of my posts without resorting to ad hominem attacks on my intelligence, or posting some anecdotal science fiction from authors whose backgrounds are proven to be fabricated.

Why don't you go join Scientology or something...

 

[newbgrow]

By the way, it's obvious they composited 3 pictures combined and skewed them to an angle to produce both those pictures. You could see the lines where they're supposed to fit together, but they fucked up on the color matching. That makes BOTH these pictures photoshopped.

Furthermore, neither picture shows any life, only dirt, so your whole argument just doesn't make any sense from the get-go. How is tampering with the colors relevant to ANYTHING? You would think if NASA really wanted to hide something, they wouldn't post it on PUBLIC DOMAIN in the first place. Why shoot themselves in the foot?

Answer: You're full of shit.

A promontory nicknamed "Cape Verde" can be seen jutting out from the walls of Victoria Crater in this false-color picture taken by the panoramic camera on NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity.

It doesn't say the picture was ALTERED. It said "FALSE-COLOR", meaning they artificially induced a light source, which there was no light in the original conditions. That's why this picture showed different colors and had more overall contrast. The original picture was just shot naturally, the red particles in the air is dust.

 

[newbgrow]

NASA says it is a civilian agency, but then secretly harbors most of its pictures and will not share them with the public, the tax payers, and they keep everything under lock and key. Proof? Show your sources, and make sure they're credible. There are literally thousands of photos given to researchers in PUBLIC DOMAIN. The only pictures they show are airbrushed ones, where they have removed stuff so they can show them to the public. You obviously don't know what it means to airbrush photos. You'd think of all the photographic experts in the world, they can't tell an airbrushed photo from a real one? lol Many whistleblowers have come forward and spoken out about NASA, like Carol Rosin, amongst others. NASA being a part of the Department of Defense is the same freaking difference Newb, they supply the means and technology for these secret projects, like space weaponry and space based sensors. You keep quoting yourself on this. NASA is not the Department of Defense, so it is NOT the same freaking thing. What the hell are you talking about? Enough with your circular anologies...

Also, NASA hides very important findings, under "national security," well if they were a civilian agency then they shoud SHARE THIS WITH THE PUBLIC.... There is evidence that bacteria were found in the Viking Mars soil samples but NO ONE SAID A WORD! Source... And while you're at it, show me the public release statement showing NASA's excuse for "hiding" stuff was "national security". Don't put words into NASA's mouth.

If NASA is a "civilian agency" then we should all be able to march into one of their facilities and be allowed to SEE EVERY SINGLE PICTURE THEY HAVE EVER TAKEN... It is OUR RIGHT! But they do not let this happen, they have super high security and keep they pictures locked down. No, it just means they aren't military related and has nothing to do with national security, directly. Coca-cola is a "civilian agency" - did you think you could march into their facilities and demand favors as well?

So if you want to argue semantics here then waste your breath, because to me it doesn't freaking make a difference whether they are cooperating with the DOD, or are an adjunct of the DOD, same freaking difference dude...Are you retarded? It means it is NOT a lie that they are a "civilian agency", which was the cornerstone of your whole argument. YOU are the one arguing semantics.

NASA indeed does have occult origins, Hoagland has proven this absolutely true. The symbolism is all over the place, not to mention the masonic and other occult societies high ranking members and administrators belong to.
Hahahhahahaha!!
If you are hiding something, anytime, to me that is "on the defense."


Beez

See my comments in bold.

 

[Babombeez]

Ignore? I looked at the pictures a few times the first time you posted. I bet you copy & pasted that excerpt, because I doubt you have ever worked with photoshop... or cameras. Red hue? I don't see nothing of it. And I doubt they had SLR cameras with professionally staged lighting kits on Mars... Low contrast, what of it? If you ever taken a picture at night you'd know what it looks like. If you'd ever seen a movie shot in digital HD at night, you'd know low contrast is nothing.

Why don't you take some of your own advice and don't take everything you read as granted? What makes you think one picture was Photoshopped and not the other?

Nothing intelligent to say??? At least I write my own posts.

This is stupid Babombeez. You have never responded to even one of my posts without resorting to ad hominem attacks on my intelligence, or posting some anecdotal science fiction from authors whose backgrounds are proven to be fabricated.

Why don't you go join Scientology or something...

LOL, your foolishness hardly deserves a reply, so basically I am going to not respond at your level. To question my photoshop experience is absurd, copy and pasted? LMFAO, you highly underestimate me. So you say I have not worked with cameras, and then what do you think I use to take pictures of my garden? To say I do not know anything about cameras is pure ignorance and foolishness on your part. Why don't you browse through my gallery and check out some of my art work and cannabis photographs... I've been working in photoshop for several years and would say I am quite qualified as a free-lance graphic artist, working for a corporate art licensing company which is based in Pomona, California. I worked as the head graphic artist for 1 year, and worked there for a total of 2 years. I am also experienced in Adobe Illustrator, InDesign, and other programs like Photoshop CS. At least you write your own posts? How embarrassing on your part to even question this, do you have evidence that I copy and pasted? lmfao, what a joke.

It is not me who resorts to ad hominem attacks, perhaps take a look in the mirror and re-read all my posts to you---I am calling you out on your ignorance and assumptions, you are dead wrong and you should be embarrassed.

"Why don't you go join scientology or something." -- LOL, so irrelevant buddy, the king of irrelevance!


Your grasping at straws now dude, so every Mars picture is completely red and hazy because of dust? Get real, those pictures are reversed to make you think Mars is a dead planet.

you are done in my book bro, not worth another second of my time.


Beez

 

[newbgrow]

At least get your effects straight, kid. Reversed? I'd like to laugh right now but I don't want to disrespect your stupidity. But reversed? It is obvious that you have no idea how colors work at all. What you see is not color reversal, but completely different lighting applied, likely at the time the picture was taken, unless extensive photoshop work was done. I hope I underestimated you, but what you said have shown otherwise. Most likely, I overestimated you. I'm going to call your bluff.

I'm done exchanging bullshit with you. You should stop lying, you can't fool anyone. You can't reverse the color in pictures to add color and contrast. To say so is pure ignorance in itself. Show me a couple of "reversed" (at least you could get the terminology right since you're in the field) pictures to the effect of the NASA photos and I will concede.

You STILL have not responded to my point about the change in lighting. The NASA page quotes "false-color" and "true color" and says NOTHING about altered or fake photos. Why don't you take your head out of your ass and look at reality for once.

My scientology offer holds, since you appeal to fiction. I'm going to stop wasting fact on you. Bad on karma.

 

[Guest]

LOL, your foolishness hardly deserves a reply, so basically I am going to not respond at your level. To question my photoshop experience is absurd, copy and pasted? LMFAO, you highly underestimate me. So you say I have not worked with cameras, and then what do you think I use to take pictures of my garden? To say I do not know anything about cameras is pure ignorance and foolishness on your part. Why don't you browse through my gallery and check out some of my art work and cannabis photographs... I've been working in photoshop for several years and would say I am quite qualified as a free-lance graphic artist, working for a corporate art licensing company which is based in Pomona, California. I worked as the head graphic artist for 1 year, and worked there for a total of 2 years. I am also experienced in Adobe Illustrator, InDesign, and other programs like Photoshop CS. At least you write your own posts? How embarrassing on your part to even question this, do you have evidence that I copy and pasted? lmfao, what a joke.

It is not me who resorts to ad hominem attacks, perhaps take a look in the mirror and re-read all my posts to you---I am calling you out on your ignorance and assumptions, you are dead wrong and you should be embarrassed.

"Why don't you go join scientology or something." -- LOL, so irrelevant buddy, the king of irrelevance!


Your grasping at straws now dude, so every Mars picture is completely red and hazy because of dust? Get real, those pictures are reversed to make you think Mars is a dead planet.

you are done in my book bro, not worth another second of my time.


Beez

Well said....ad hominem attacks........transparent tactic.

 

[watermelon]

i couldnt be bothered to read most of the thread becuase this is just clearly bollocks.

the japanese have just mapped the entire moon in high def. did they find anything interesting? no. if they did theyd blatently tell everyone just to get one-up on the US, plus theyd blatently want to work on the technology.

 

[PhenoMenal]

China has also successfully launched a moon orbiter yet they've never claimed the Apollo landing was a hoax. It seems Stoned2Death knows more about moon landings than the US and Chinese space agencies/governments combined.

 

[Babombeez]

At least get your effects straight, kid. Reversed? I'd like to laugh right now but I don't want to disrespect your stupidity. But reversed? It is obvious that you have no idea how colors work at all. What you see is not color reversal, but completely different lighting applied, likely at the time the picture was taken, unless extensive photoshop work was done. I hope I underestimated you, but what you said have shown otherwise. Most likely, I overestimated you. I'm going to call your bluff.

I'm done exchanging bullshit with you. You should stop lying, you can't fool anyone. You can't reverse the color in pictures to add color and contrast. To say so is pure ignorance in itself. Show me a couple of "reversed" (at least you could get the terminology right since you're in the field) pictures to the effect of the NASA photos and I will concede.

You STILL have not responded to my point about the change in lighting. The NASA page quotes "false-color" and "true color" and says NOTHING about altered or fake photos. Why don't you take your head out of your ass and look at reality for once.

My scientology offer holds, since you appeal to fiction. I'm going to stop wasting fact on you. Bad on karma.

You have completely misunderstood what I have been saying... I am not saying the color was reversed, I am saying JPL purposefully reversed the pictures, meaning the one in "false color" is actually not in false color, it is the REAL picture of the martian surface, with bluish skies, reddish rocks, with sand and very similar to a desert landscape such as the Colorado red rocks, or Sedona, Arizona... The other picture (with the red, hazy, dreary sky and landscape) is actually the one in "false color", meaning the hue and color balance has been played with to portray Mars as a lifeless planet... So this is what I meant by reversed dude... They just SWITCHED the pictures.... You claim that it is dust in these pictures that gives them that reddish, hazy hue but that is not right at all, because EVERY SINGLE PICTURE looks like that from Mars, all red and hazy, so you mean to tell me that there is that much dust in the air all the time, in every single Mars surface picture. Hypothetically lets say we travel out into the desert, even the wind is blowing... The picture will not turn out all hazy like those Mars ones, the sky will still look blue, regardless... It is obvious they have switched those pictures, swapped them out for altered ones...


Beez

 

[Guest]

Can't wait to see hi-def pictures of the lunar landers and the rover. That will be sweeeeeeet!!

Beez...I think you're right on about the faked Mars photos. The moon photos are fake too.

 

[newbgrow]

OK, then I misunderstood you on that point. I apologize for that. But you have to understand that because Mars has no atmosphere, it is subject to very harsh solar winds that erode the surface. The surface rocks aren't as dense as it is here on Earth. So yes, what I'm saying is that there is that much dust there so close to the surface because Mars has no atmosphere, else you wouldn't see that many craters either. In either picture, do you see any water or trees? As you may know, dirt is not "alive", so it looks like a "dead" planet either way. I don't understand what you're trying to say - that NASA would try to "fake a dead planet" by switching photos? That's absurd. Why would they even post the "faked" photo if they were desparately hiding secrets?

Also, trying to fake a "dead planet" look on Mars by "adding dust" would seem to be a moot point since NASA and other space agencies have posted pictures that would show otherwise. As you can see here, a photo of a wide shot of the beautiful Martian atmosphere: apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap960207.html. And here: http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/martianchronicle/martianchron2/issue2images/viking1panorama.jpeg. And here: http://media.skyandtelescope.com/images/Mars-Twil-Peaks1_l.jpg.

 

[Pops]

Beez, obviously you have never read anything about Mars. Mars does have an atmosphere, but it is very thin. The pressure on the surface is less than 1% of earth. The atmosphere is 95% Carbon dioxide. Due to the thin atmosphere, solar winds pick up large quantities of dust and keep it in the atmosphere. Mars has the biggest dust storms in our solar system. Yes, there is that much dust in the atmosphere and it will consistantly cause the pictures to come out reddish color, as the dust from the surface is iron oxide(rust).

Mars also has a sufficient quantity of frozen water at the southern pole that, if you melted it, it would cover the whole planet with more than 30' of water.

Sorry to disturb you with facts. I know that they must give you a rash.