I'm not arguing that people haven't seen UFOs, just that you won't find the proof on Youtube.
Try the daily mail 😉
Myarka.
I'm not arguing that people haven't seen UFOs, just that you won't find the proof on Youtube.
Yep. Read above. What would constitute absolute proof? Never images.
Then again, a UFO is just simply that - an unidentified flying object - as leading ufologists often point out. When a manned orbiter of the moon takes scenes of one skimming nearer to the moon's surface, that's a UFO proved, in the noughties, on Youtube.
Anyone else's comment just now is considerably more trite than "Take me to your leader" in a B-movie.
V
Applying logic to Ufology
No apologies for hitting away on this subject, even though it's a bit of a monologue. 🙂
I just had a few free moments and got to thinking. Look at the shot in the first 1 or 2 seconds here: (I already posted the link before):
One major point here is, this is not a fake shot. OK, it's on Youtube. But it's existed since it was taken. If anybody doubts that, do your own research: it's genuine NASA footage from 1971 or 1972 (the final manned moon orbits and landings).
OK, it's real footage, not fake. That discounts the recent discussion that "you can't trust images on YouTube".
Now, what are we seeing? I know my astronomy. There is no natural object that could look like that, though no clear details are seen. It's no meteor, since they are grains of sand, mostly, which are only visible since they "burn" in the atmosphere, due to the speed of transit. But the moon has no air.
So I got to thinking about just that one genuine NASA clip. What we are seeing is a craft. By logic or philosophy, I took this further. It's not rocket-science. Excuse the pun. Craft = made by intelligences, possibly and probably with them in it. Craft just over the moon like that, then or now = not human. That's a non-human spacecraft. Interesting or what?
Anyone have any other views to discount this simple logic?
V
Very interesting how it completely changes direction and speed, but I don't think it can be seen as evidence. The first section looks like NASA footage of the moon but then that's fake as they never landed there 😀
Very interesting how it completely changes direction and speed, but I don't think it can be seen as evidence. The first section looks like NASA footage of the moon but then that's fake as they never landed there 😀
I was in fact only posting about the "first section". It is very short! But clear. And I have TBH - I was old enough and alive and savvy at the time of the moon landings, and they were all real. I have again TBH - the concept that they are fake is sheer s.f., Jas, and in fact quite upsetting to the astronauts who went there. It isn't so very hard to do, you know, given a budget. In fact, there are plans to return. The only reason for a halt in the programme was that there was no no financial pay-off; and also that they beat the Soviets.
Later edit to add: I meant to say that I think you'll find - I know you will - that people who think the moon landings never actualy happened are all too young to have been alive and savvy at the time. So they don't know how real it all was. It's a gender or age thing.
Believe me, men have been there. Whyever not? If men had not been there in 1969, we would have gone there since! The reason we have not gone there since is becuase it's already been done.
I used to rush home from school: it was all live on TV, amazing scenes of driving the buggy around in the moondust, and even a bad decision to try to play golf there!
V