Any Coherent Theories out there...?

AgoraBasta's statement is the only one I've heard that makes sense on this subject, in my opinion. Anything else is pure speculation.

However, I have a practical question: Is there the technology present to get there (man mission) in the near future? I guess some will claim that we went to the moon but recent press articles and documentaries have introduced serious doubts into the reality of the moon landing. Actually some claim it was virtual reality. Even NASA admitted the artificiality of some pictures but claimed it was done because the ones received from moon were damaged. Any comments?

Ultimately we each have to weigh up the evidence and make our own decision. There's a pretty good site here -

[url] www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/ [/url]

which comprehensively presents the hoax brigade's arguments versus the counter-arguments in favour of an actual landing. I believe we did land on the Moon in 1969, but must confess to having that belief shaken a little when the hoax thing first hit. Even as a kid watching the event on TV, I always remember being slightly disturbed by the fact that when the LEM blasted off from the surface, the camera left on the Moon panned up to follow its ascent. I think this was explained as being remotely controlled from Huston.

Either way, a Moon landing in 1969 was a tremendous achievement from the viewpoint of the technology available at that time.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[tvanflandern]:
If you are going to judge by appearances alone, that will always remain the case because appearances have an intrinsic ambiguity. For a non-ambiguous "proof" that the Face is not a natural feature, see "Evidence of planetary artifacts" at it.utsi.edu/~spsr/ . Click on "Recent articles", then the specific title. -|Tom|-




<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

What do yo say to those who maintain that (paraphrasing
here) "The 'face' is an effect of light and shadow, but mostly, of poor resolution." What they dare not explain, however, is the anomalous proximity of several "natural" tetrahedra or pentahedra
(I must admit that the resolution leaves me asking which), including the one containing the face.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[tvanflandern]:
If you are going to judge by appearances alone, that will always remain the case because appearances have an intrinsic ambiguity. For a non-ambiguous "proof" that the Face is not a natural feature, see "Evidence of planetary artifacts" at it.utsi.edu/~spsr/ . Click on "Recent articles", then the specific title. -|Tom|-




<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

What do yo say to those who maintain that (paraphrasing
here) "The 'face' is an effect of light and shadow, but mostly, of poor resolution." What they dare not explain, however, is the anomalous proximity of several "natural" tetrahedra or pentahedra
(I must admit that the resolution leaves me asking which), including the one containing the face.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Picture from Atkos post.
<img src=" www.capricorndreams.com/structure1.jpg " border=0>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

<b>Atko, did you do this? What is going on around here?
Am I seeing things? Who is this in the picture?</b>
<img src=" sweepstakes.oregonlottery.com/images/person.gif " border=0>

If we get to mars and get some archeologists, (of course astronauts) to inspect the sctructures then we can be pretty sure and pretty pertains to the fact we always get new views on old subjects to breath new life into them.

The intuitive mind