Why is there an 800 pound Gorilla on the Moon that NASA refuses to address? To date, no success at getting NASA to release theses images without the airbrushing. To date, NASA refuses to comment. What is going on?
The freedom of information act, does not work if it is deem a matter of national security. What is threatening about structures lost in time.
I don't need to figure out where I'm going. I was denying that you have to be famous or established to become an authority on anything. So, there's no such thing as an undiscovered authority in your book. That would seem to be the upshot.
I'm not trying to bring it all back to your reply to Jim Scotti. I'm trying to make sense of what you said. People refer to authorities, but it doesn't follow that they weren't authorities until someone referred to them.
By your definition of "authority":
The operational definition of "authority" here is someone who is generally considered a credible source within the relevant community.
most of my fellow space historians would consider me an authority when it comes to Lunar exploration. If you are not a space historian, it would be understandable that you wouldn't recognize an expert on space history. I not only maintain several websites about Apollo but I am a contributor to what is likely the most authoritative website about the Apollo program on the internet, the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. I am also a professional Planetary Scientist and have also spent some time as the Apollo expert on a project that had planned to land a rover on the Moon, so technically, you could call me a "Rocket Scientist".
When someone like Michael comes along and makes or refers to wild crackpot claims that are pretty easy to refute, it is imperative for skeptics with relevant knowledge step forward to debunk those claims, especially for the benefit of those who don't have the ability or the interest to do so. Claims like those put forth by the originator of this topic are an assault on science and on our collective intelligence, especially when the claims are believed religiously as has been demonstrated clearly.
I see....craters. *yawn* When's lunch?
I can't believe I have to explain this.
Michael, in order for you to be so insistent that NASA produce some sort of report or answer of any kind on these pictures, you would have to believe that there actually is a gorilla on the moon. If you did not believe this, your reaction to these pictures would be, "oh look, a moon".
We can then conclude, from the fact that your making such a big fuss over this, that you do actually believe in the gorilla, and that leads to the logical conclusion that you are making an implied statement as to the validity of the pictures. This means that you are asserting a truth. If I were to say, "but there's no banana in the picture", I would then have to show you the picture, and indicate the lack of bananas. Of course, I can't do that, since I can't see the pictures themselves, but something tells me that there is, in fact, a lack of bananas in it.
Thus Michael, because you are putting forth a statement of truth, even an implied one, you are left with the burden of evidence that your statement is credible and factual. Those who do not agree with you, and thus do not believe in the gorilla, do not have to have proof. They could simply not believe you because its wednesday and they don't feel like it, maybe they haven't had enough coffee to believe in gorillas until Saturday. You, however, have to have evidence for your claim, because you are claiming a truth. Understand?
Also, I have to wonder, if the gorilla is eight hundred pounds, does that mean that it is actually 4800 pounds, or its actually 800 pounds, and is only weighing about 130 pounds right now as it sits leisurely on the moon? I mean, the moon has approximately one sixth the mass of the earth, that means that the gravitational force is one sixth that of the earth. Thus, the gorilla would either weigh 4800 pounds on earth, or the 800 is the earth weight, and it actually weighs much less. And how does it breathe, and how has it not been killed by the totally inhospitable lack of an atmosphere on the moon?
Unless, and I'm asking that someone explain this, because I am blind and can't see the pictures, is michael making a claim that there is a formation of rock on the moon that resembles a gorilla, or that there is some shadow on a picture that looks slightly gorilla-esque? Basically, is he claiming there is actually a gorilla tramping around the moon, happy as a clam, (well a clam that never gets laid and has no chance of reproduction and never talks to anyone and basically rebels against every law of nature we've ever discovered in the history of discoveries), or is he saying that its something that looks like a gorilla?
We're all in about the same boat here, Cody. Michael is claiming that there are blurry parts of the picture which don't show anything and that because they don't show anything there is something there that we can't see - so none of us can actually see the things that aren't there except for Michael.
Heather, the accusation by the claimants is that they have seen the un-doctored photos.
This the ex NASA employees have witnessed. They are trying to substantiate their claim through the FOIA. over a 1000 photo from the Clementine are not being released as a matter of national security.
This incessant sceptical sentiment of ah, just accept being ignored because there can't possibly be anything there is really coming across incredulously. if there is nothing there than why is it a matter of national security?
I asked you a long time ago in this thread for a citation of the rejection letter. I'm assuming that you didn't respond to that because there is no such rejection letter, let alone one citing national security as the reason. That being said, this is all made-up hooey.
Look on page 6 of this thread.
You know I read the first version of that before you deleted it, so I'm going to respond to that first version because I'm not reading more of your stupid ramblings. You asked if their were classified photos and they said no. They did not cite national security issues as you claimed, so this is all just a fabrication on your part - you are wasting everyone's time here.
What are you referring to Heather, How long have you had this problem.
The only post is on page 6..
Put this "stupid rambling" that you speak of in a jar prove your claim, then we will believe you
Outside of that we we consign you to the baseless rant section.
And have a nice day.