View Single Post
Old 01-03-2010, 07:13 AM   #56
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12
Default Re: The smoking gun NASA a Fraud Proof Of Life On Moon

[QUOTE=Majorion;214216]Oh yes Philbert, the original image there is a really good find on your part, definitely qualifies a Gem.

The Cydonia region itself, there's a city under there, and some of the strange shapes you outlined in the beginning, those are possibly ruins and the geometries are quite bizarre.

Honestly, that image is very very good, but only the things you've zoomed in super close I don't interpret the same or agree. Like when you interpret saucers or people or terminals; that sorta thing.

It very well could be that what you describe is close to the concept, but take a step back, instead of zooming in on objects, I think the whole image from a birds eye view speaks for itself. There's some artificial looking stuff down there, I've seen the Cydonia IR and analyzed the raw data myself, there's no doubt in my mind, at least.

I find your Honesty statement to be offensive and to be Honest with you it puts me on the defense.
Especially when you have no where near the hours I have in interpretation into these images.
So when you say in the same sentence “there are cities under there” then go on to pretend you can interpret the objects in the images as Ruins. Show me the cities you claim so I can interpret them.
This may sound a little rude, but you have to take a back seat on your interpretation of what you think I already know.

I discovered these anomalies, I put several thousands of hours into cropping ,enhancing and interpretation that took over three months.

You have viewed them for less than one day, and you are going to tell me I don't understand what I am looking at?

Of course you don't have to believe what I say they are, but maybe you should keep what you think I don't know to yourself until you are 100% positive you know what you are talking about.

Sorry I have to be this way, but this is not a contest to me.
I would have taken your statement a little different if you just would have said you don't see them.
But really non of us should be making comments to degrade a persons research until we have sufficient amount of proof that we can say " hey I figured out what these are, here is what I came up with.

Sorry again for being so harsh, but it felt as though you stuck a thorn in my side.
I'm sure you would feel the same way if someone said they don't interpret your research as you have come to understand it. Especially without a substantial explanation.

I also will disagree with your birds eye view. Yes I can agree that at the birds eye view there is already enough in the images to suggest an importance. Zooming in is important to get a good look at the surroundings. I really should not need to explain myself to you. Bottom line is I brought these images to you, if you see a different interpretation and you don't interpret them as I do, then you should have given your interpretation.
Otherwise you have created the offence not me.

But as far as these being ruins, not a chance.
These were in fact inhabited when the images where taken and probably still are today.

Yes there are humans in the images along with animals. As far as a TERMINAL , I said nothing of the sort in the post. You got that from Dantheman62.

This old theory of everything that looks like a building or structure is ruins is common place in mainstream media and science with those who are uncertain of jumping into the unknown.
That is what these images are to you unknown.
So please next time be a little more conservative in your thoughts before you text them here for everyone to read.

The only reason I have come off like this is to defend my own position and research.

Hey I don't mind working with others on interpretation but don't try and undermined my knowledge unless you have proof positive of what you are talking about.

I have came to this forum to give to others what they might need to understand the ufo phenomenon or life on other planets as I have found in My own research.

If you question it do so with a question rather than a statement.
If I am wrong in what I have put out as an interpretation, then I would expect to be shown where I am wrong. Not just say your wrong.

I would suggest you analyze the raw image yourself, if you find something different than what I have interpreted the images as, show me.
But don’t come out here as thought you know everything about every anomaly that is posted.

Now I must apologize most sincerely as I am not intending to offend you in this matter, Just letting you know where you have made your mistake.
Philbert is offline   Reply With Quote