You would think froma publication called "truth" (Pravda, a Russian rag not fit for wiping with) They might be able to throw in a few facts. Anyway, check out these pages, they are good for a laugh.

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/10/05/37771.html

and pics to go with

http://www.anomalies.net/ufo/moon/los.htm


My mind is reeling... I need a martini! Stat!

Great. Now Hoagland has infiltrated Russia. And he's promoted himself to "specialist for lunar studies" too. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

It's amazing how much Hoagland knows about NASA's "secrets", considering they supposedly refuse to acknowledge them or release photos or anything. Even when he asks nicely. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

I guess the Freedom of Information Act doesn't apply to information that doesn't exist! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

Sea of Storms

Do they mean Ocean of Storms?

A mission control specialist commented

Ooh! An unnamed expert in a conspiracy theory. Fancy that!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Glom on 2002-10-06 15:30 ]</font>

<a name="2-10-06.6:35 P.M."> page 2-10-06.6:35 P.M. aka 2-10-06.6:35 P.M.
On 2002-10-06 15:30, Glom wrote:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=3&1#LUNA.LINE
2 2-10-11 4:11 A.M. pretty much dead in the water
3
4
5
6
7
8

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-10-07 06:29 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-10-11 07:01 ]</font>

From the article:
It was announced for the first time that man-made structures and objects have been discovered on the Moon.

Hehe, that's true! When did the first Lunik hit the Moon? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Harald

If I were a civilisation on the moon, I would spend way less time drawing big squares and triangles in the ground.

But maybe that's just me.

Okay, this is infuriating. I remember that press conference, several years ago. March 21, 1996 - sounds about right. Somehow Pravda has picked up a story from another Russian newspaper, Vecherny Volgograd. Someone along the way has come under the impression that Hoagland is some sort of official NASA spokesperson, no doubt fostered by Hoagland himself.

Hoagland got himself invited to some sort of NASA Headquarters special luncheon speakers program. They bring in speakers and allow the employees to attend. It is not an official NASA position, but rather a sort of after-hours or extra-curricular program. Hoagland has been spinning it for all that he's worth. As I recall, the press-conference was so ridiculous most of the people walked out on it. This as reported via a local radio correspondent covering it for a radio station in Houston.

Hello journalistic integrity, where are you going?

&lt;a name="2-10-07.3:50 A.M."> POST 2-10-07.3:49 A.M. aka "LUNik"
On 2002-10-07 03:11, kucharek wrote: To? Linkname: Lunik Program

http://www.terra.es/personal/heimdall/eng/luna.htm

In the mid-60s, the Soviets accomplished first soft lunar landing

Date Weight (Kg) Period (days)]Luna 1 2-Jan-1959 361 450

18]Luna 2 12-Sep-1959 390 impact on surface (13-Sep-1959)

Now what would give you the idea that he would do something like that? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

That Pravada article reeks. Won't be to long till ol' Hoagwash will be posting it on his website and boasting... ::sigh::

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

I haven't seen anything resembling journalistic integrity since the early 1960s. Now it's about "newsworthiness" and "readership" or "viewership". And by that I mean, "How can we media executives get more dough?"

Of course all the NASA people walked out. These are people who spend their whole lives looking at planetary surfaces (including ours) photographed from great distances away. Hoagland never was anything more than a media "support" staffer.

His "transparent domes" are nothing but lens artifacts. What a maroon!

Back in the day, Pravda had its own sort of integrity- almost anything it chose to print was entitled to instant and unquestioning acceptance as a lie.

Now it's just another famous brand, bought by opportunists and selling entertainment to the conspiracist niche market.

<sigh> Things fall apart...

Let's not get carried away here. I don't think it's fair to imply that the media have abandoned their ethics or are complicit in Hoagland-esque hucksterism. Lackadaisical reporting happens, sure, but so does lackadaisacal engineering, lackadaisical doctoring, etc.

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

I'm reminded of an interesting observation I have discussed with others in the past, I think perhaps from Scott Adams (aka Dilbert's creator).

In engineering, first comes the idea man. He has an idea for widgets, and he's technically competent in designing the widgets, and he makes a company to make widgets. And he hires some good technical people to help make widgets. And they make good widgets, and the widgets sell, because they're good. Then after a while, the business is growing and competition in the widget business grows. Then the company gets accountants in to help make things efficient and keep the business healthy. And slowly the accountant types (and marketing types) take over, and become more interested in making money than making widgets. Till the company becomes a big bloated monster that doesn't care about the innovations from the technical folks because they interfere with the "way things are done" and the current widgets and marketing.

I think there's something similar in the news business. The newspapers and TV stations are run by competent and mostly ethical journalists, but the decisions are monitored and controlled by the owners, who are more concerned over the dollar than the content. "Oh, you can't publish that because that is critical of company X, which is a subsidiary of our parent company, and that would hurt company X, which hurts us." And the news is shaped and controlled by the accountant/marketers, rather than the journalists.

Here's yet another example of what seems to be the same effect in a slightly different field. The Sci Fi channel is a popular cable channel. It has a niche market - Sci Fi programs. But like most cable channels (as opposed to networks), it doesn't have much original programming. It mostly runs movies and old reruns, and occasionally begs a new show to run syndication as a second run. However, they had one original program, Farscape. After three and a half seasons, and just wrapping the filming on a fourth season, they go and cancel the program and won't make the already promised fifth season. It's an expensive show to make, yes. There are probably good reasons from a business perspective to cancel it. But the handling of it paid very little regard to the opinions of the main base of their customers, the viewers they're trying to appeal to. The one original program that they had that reached their core audience and they canceled it. Probably to make more John Edward Crossing Over shows.

I think there's a lot of truth to that. Ayn Rand summarized the ideal of capitalism as "trading your best effort for the best effort of others." Too often, companies turn it into trading their most lucrative or expedient efforts rather than their best, which is not the same thing. I've seen a number of instances of it.

Is this off-topic enough? Surely we can provide an example, say, from the consumer telescope industry.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Nah, we haven't mentioned Hitler's socks yet. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

If they are on the moon, then we haven't [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

Edited witness testimony by Sgt. Karl Wolfe; US Air Force, for the Disclosure Project.
Discussing artefacts on lunar photos.
http://www.topsecrettestimony.com/wt...iles/wolfe.asx (Download with ASFRecorder v1.1 - http://asfrecorder.chat.ru as Streaming is impossible, ie 404'ed.)

You guys either urgently need a paradign shift or a swift kick up the butt. I have yet to decide which.

If that was the case, then this story would have been front page in every country, particularly the US.
It wasnt so either your hypothesis is wrong or your government are exerting more control than ex-communist Russia.
Another story that your country and mine suppressed: http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/09/16/36691.html
Instead of denying their proximity, I for one thank these Aliens ("Gods"). They saved our bacon.

USA - Land of the free? Dont make me laugh. The Ruskies are putting us to shame.

What an ignoranimous!

If you like quoting Bugs Bunny so much, I'll resurrect him for you Jay. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Slime (Silky Smooth) on 2002-10-10 03:55 ]</font>

Did Slime (Silky Smooth) forgot a pack of ironie-tags or is he "serious"?

Must be an American brand-name. Havent heard of ironie-tags?

I am deadly serious. You are so sure of your own view of life and the universe that you discredit any other evidence out of pure bigotted prejudice, no matter what 'insiders' have to say.
Structures on the moon, alien or man-made are hardly likely to be announced to an American public that panics at the mere mention of little green men.
Some of us dont believe everything were told by our governments.
That sets us apart I suppose.
I believe what eye-witnesses say over men in uniform.

Must be an American brand-name. Havent heard of ironie-tags?

As you see, I'm German... But it's also no German brand-name...

I am deadly serious.

I guess, then you've a problem.

You are so sure of your own view of life and the universe that you discredit any other evidence out of pure bigotted prejudice, no matter what 'insiders' have to say.

I can think critical, too. And if I don't follow your arguments it's not because of 'bigotted prejudice', but because there is no real evidence and it contradicts too much logic and reasoning and knowledge. And thankfully, you put 'insiders' into quotes yourself.

Structures on the moon, alien or man-made are hardly likely to be announced to an American public that panics at the mere mention of little green men.

NASA would be happy to announce anything alien stuff found anywhere to finally have a reason to get lots of money to go again somewhere. Just look at how they hype any hint of former life on Mars or even the possibility of water somewhere on the Moon or Mars...
But these "structures"... Never heard about Rorschach? Never played "looking at clouds and seeing animals" as a child?

Some of us dont believe everything were told by our governments.

The problem is their wrong conclusion that then they believe anything that is not said by the government.

That sets us apart I suppose.
I believe what eye-witnesses say over men in uniform.

What is an eye-witness? Someone who just says: "I've seen this or that!"?

[Typos editied]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kucharek on 2002-10-10 05:37 ]</font>

NASA would be happy to announce anything alien stuff found anywhere to finally have a reason to get lots of money to go again somewhere. Just look at how they hype any hint of former life on Mars or even the possibility of water somewhere on the Moon or Mars...

NASA are the military. Do you really think they would want China or a revamped Soviet Union discovering potential weapons of galactic destruction? Let alone Saddam Hussain and his ilk.
When you have a big secret its best to keep it that way. Microbes on Mars? Little secret and more funding for the military machine.

Never heard about Rorschach? Never played "looking at clouds and seeing animals" as a child?

Ink Blot tests dont show up on radar, arent whipped away by CIA stooges and then denied existence.

FAA Division Chief John Callahan
http://www.topsecrettestimony.com/wt...s/callahan.asx (Download with ASFRecorder v1.1 then play)

The problem is their wrong conclusion that then they believe anything that is not said by the government.

I am different. I do believe some in the military. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Brigadier General Steven Lovekin, Esq.: Army National Guard Reserve
http://www.topsecrettestimony.com/wt...es/lovekin.asx (Download with ASFRecorder v1.1 then play)

I have an open mind. You reject the evidence out of hand as all who have contributed to this thread.
Go take a look at the various whimsical put-downs. Is this good science? What this Brigadier Lovekin has to say would be top headlines on any TV/Newpaper on this planet. Making media bosses plenty of dough. Perhaps you can give a logical reason why this hasnt stirred any interest given the interest there is in UFO in America.

What is an eye-witness? Someone who just says: "I've seen this or that!"?

LOL. Evidence of ones eyes now being ridiculed.
I cant win here and that is how you must keep the argument going.

You guys either urgently need a paradign shift or a swift kick up the butt. I have yet to decide which.

A "paradigm shift" towards what, exactly? Tossing aside all the overwhelming evidence that the Apollo missions went pretty much as the record states, and found pretty much what the record states, in favor of a few recordings (of alleged secret testimony by allegedly relevant sources who allegedly know what they're talking about) on a web site somewhere?

Few, if any, regulars on this board believe everything their government tells them. Nor do they believe every half-baked conspiracy claim thrown their way without a little credible evidence.

I don't think we need a "paradigm shift" (there's an overused term). As for the other part, well, if you're willing to try... anytime, baby!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-10-10 10:11 ]</font>

"NASA are the military. "
No, NASA is a civilian organisation.

"Some of us dont believe everything were told by our governments. "

I don`t believe goverments all of the time either but in this case i have science at my disposal to make an informed non-governmental conclusion.

"Evidence of ones eyes now being ridiculed."

Eyes arent always the most appropriate or reliable scientific instrument for gathering data.

Yup.

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...177&forum=2&13

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

We're suppose to take seriously anything posted at a site with the url http://www.topsecrettestimony.com?

You're right some of us do need a paradigm shift (gads I hate that phrase), but not the ones you think...

Let's get back to Hitler's socks on the moon.

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

Discussing artefacts on lunar photos.

I do not accept the Disclosure Project as a reliable source, especially now that I have to write a check to them in order to hear their evidence. You wish to throw out vast amounts of freely available, public evidence in favor of some person you've never met telling you something uncorroborated that defies all logic.

You guys either urgently need a paradign shift or a swift kick up the butt. I have yet to decide which.

I don't require my paradigm being shifted toward the blind acceptance of uncorroborated hearsay evidence given by alleged but unsubstantiated insiders, sold on the Internet. As for kicking in the butt, that's the only method of argumentation you've demonstrated any skill at undertaking. But unfortunately your underhanded, ad hominem techniques are not allowed here on this board.

Yes, I do believe my government lies to me, and I believe yours lies to you. That doesn't mean that they're automatically lying about some particular thing, nor does it mean that truth instead is what you say it is. You are trying to prove something is yellow by proving it's not blue.

If that was the case, then this story would have been front page in every country, particularly the US. It wasnt so either your hypothesis is wrong ...

Why do you think my hypothesis stated that every unsubstantiated, sensationalist story must be reported in the mainstream U.S. press? I'm certainly not the only one to point out that journalism has become more sensationalistic and less substantial.

As for the story, I'm sure it was reported in some U.S. publications, right alongside coverage of some woman who married Bigfoot, and the greatest fat-burning diets of the Bible. If you want to believe tabloid journalism, that's your business. But don't go around trying to convince us that it's the "real" truth.

Jay: His "transparent domes" are nothing but lens artifacts. What a maroon!

What an ignoranimous!

I assume you mean "ignoramus".

Unfortunately the transparent dome point is by far the weakest element of Hoagland's argument. It's one thing to look at some ambiguous feature and say, "It's an alien arch". It's another thing altogether to look at a very straightforward, easily recognized optical artifact and say, "No, it's a transparent dome". It's not as if there's any question what those spots are.

If you like quoting Bugs Bunny so much, I'll resurrect him for you Jay. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Yes, we all know you're Carrot Cruncher, and the kind of damage Carrot Cruncher does to the free exchange of information. We also know just how tenuous Carrot Cruncher's welcome is on Bad Astronomy. You may be able to bluster your way around the hapless teenage webmaster at ApolloHoax, but here your tactics are not tolerated.