Has anyone seen 'The Shard' on the moon?

[jamie6747]

Hello

I have seen other threads about people who have visited the moon and have seen strange moon anomalies, some say they have seen what look like glass structures in lunar craters, buildings made of lunar stone and strange lights on the far side of the moon, some NASA photos ive studied seem to show activity on the moon.

Here is what appears on NASA Lunar Orbiter 3 frame 3084



If this is really on the moon do you think we could find it?

[Bluefirephoenix]

I suggest you read "Penetration" by Ingo Swan. http://www.amazon.com/Penetration-Question-Extraterrestrial-Human-Telepathy/dp/0966767403

the book is poorly titled.

It's in my CRV grab bag If I find anything interesting that is pertinent to this forum I'll post it.

[FuzzyQuills]

Someone could always head there during an NPMR visit to check it out. Might as well give AP a try again, since the weather's warming up now. (I have also been waking up very early for no good reason the last few mornings)

[jamie6747]

Someone should go up.

[FuzzyQuills]

Someone should go up.

If I can get out soon enough, I will. Fortunately, it's nearing end of school term for me, that way, I will have more time to do it.

[Bluefirephoenix]

You have to do it blind. It doesn't matter if you are oobe or CRV. I have the targets in unmarked envelopes and some targets out of target pools in there mixed in to create doubt. Your expectations will generate the scenes you see.

[Stillwater]

You have to do it blind. It doesn't matter if you are oobe or CRV. I have the targets in unmarked envelopes and some targets out of target pools in there mixed in to create doubt. Your expectations will generate the scenes you see.

I second this. This has been relayed by remote viewers for years. You get far more interesting and potentially accurate results viewing a place you didn't choose and have no pre-conceived notions about.

[Bluefirephoenix]

the grab bag of unmarked envelopes with various targets including practice targets is the best way to do it alone.

[jamie6747]

The shard is right next to this glass structure and behind that is a large dome. If you look at the above image you will see 'tower' or 'cube' as its known. here it is below.

Lunar Orbiter frame LO-III-84-M.

[Bluefirephoenix]

I don't agree with Hoagland's interpretation of that photo. I do think there is something there but I don't see the cube and I think what he's doing to the image is distorting it. The software he used is now way out of date. I think the issue needs to be re addressed using the original negatives and using modern professional quality photo enhancing software.

[Stillwater]

I love Hoagland's spirit... but man, he sees what he wants to see in any shot of a celestial body.

[Bluefirephoenix]

I'm not saying there is nothing there, but I am thinking its gas or dust rather than a structure. Ingo Swann did a CRV of the moon and found a biological singature where there shouldn't have been one. I concur with that. My own lunar session I found something that shared some of the characteristics of Swann's session. If that is the case then there will be dust kicked up and probably a few gasses released from whatever is being done there.

I bout @%! myself when I got the feedback too. I thought I was offtarget.  Now I'm not so sure.

[Stillwater]

I bout @%! myself when I got the feedback too. I thought I was offtarget.  Now I'm not so sure.

Doing targets blindly removes the bias of the remote viewer, for the most part. But it doesn't account for the bias of the target supplier, unless there are controls provided for the viewing experiment.

For instance, if the only target for that session was the moon, regardless if you as the remote viewer were in on that or not (which of course you weren't), there is no baseline for the types of random "noise" your remote viewing is producing. If I was organizing that session, I would have provided a number of highly mundane targets to serve as controls. If in that case only the moon target produced an interesting result, it would add more interest to that result.

Is this how your session actually went, Blue? Did they provide you with a bunch of false-target mundanes to get a baseline control from you, or was it only a few targets?

[Bluefirephoenix]

Some say that 80% of the targets should be mundane. In CRV you keep statistics as to your accuracy. So say your accuracy is 70% and you do an esoteric target. Your results with the esoteric target are likely to fall within the same accuracy range.

Consensus is about worthless in remote viewing so you cannot use that to increase your accuracy. I'll give you an example. Daz S. who leads a CRV group on facebook did an ARV experiment. We viewed the target with only a number, then we were told to match the target with one of 4 picutres.   The pictures were matched with a candidate for the British labour party leadership. There were two people who got the post box. I was one of them. After the sessions were closed, he revealed what the different pictures represented. I was one of two people that picked the post box and 25 other people picked the apple and a ball. I figured I was dead wrong. I had never done ARV before and am at a lower skill level than most in the group. We have operational level viewers in that group. So I was really tempted to waffle and change my vote but I didn't I stuck to it. The post office box represented the dark horse candidate. None of the political analysts took him seriously.

The dark horse candidate won and out of 25 or so viewers only myself and one other had viewed the results correctly.

So the correct answers will be in your session... but you may not know which perceptions are correct and your likely to guess wrong. The best you can do is to assess the accuracy of the verifiable aspects of the session and try to follow the pattern, knowing that patterns don't necessarily indicate the most correct perception.

Keeping statistics on each type of perception, knowing your stregnths and weaknesses, for example I'm a good visual and audio viewer but my sense of smell sucks and we won't even talk about taste. ( yea you gotta taste all the targets ) and I'm 50/50 on the purpose  and ambiance of the target. So now I practice smelling and tasting each gestalt I dig up on a target to try to improve in those areas.

You then have a better idea as to what might be accurate and what is likely to not be accurate. You track record in esoteric targets is probably the most important factor.

This applies to any psychic tool so it's the same regardless if you use dowsing, CRV, ARV ( viewing by association) or ERV ( phasing or astral projection as taught by the Monroe institute)

ERV is essentially an invention of the Monroe institute btw. It is also called perfect site intigration or PSI. It was not favored by Ingo Swann so it's practice is fairly limited.  It was found not to be anymore accurate than doing tradition CRV and the detail was generally less because the change of mental state was required before writing down the perceptions. Perceptions are lost when that happens.

I think splitting and bilocation is the key to using ERV or PSI, so you are viscerally intigrated and able to write or talk at the same time.


The statistical took I use breaks down the perception into catagories....for example sensories smell taste, sight and touch. Each perception is rated as a yes it's on the site, no it's not likely to be on the site, or unknown. The y/n are then scored as a  percentage.

[jamie6747]

Here is another one.


The spider as its called. Its some kind of mechanical object with legs that moves over the lunar surface, this image was occurred by a member of abovetopsecret.com. He asked NASA for a copy of the original image for research purposes but what he found was this object below.




Who knows who built it or what its for.

[Bluefirephoenix]

I would think that some alien objects would be incomprehensible to us.  I know quite a few of the mars objects that are being questioned for artificiality you look at them and think what is this. Some are obviously artificial. There is an underground structure a framework with a disk there. It's very bizzare looking and I cannot even imagine what it would be for. But it's very obviously artificial. it has right angle boxes and symetry.

There was also a crustation like thing photographed by Curiousity. I wouldn't want to meet it in a dark ally. There is no way anyone is going to convince me that is not a fossilized organism. I think NASA should have checked it out, or at least gotten a better picture.  The way that they did not do that makes me believe more that they are not interested in sharing with the public, their findings.

Here's a good example of CRV done on objects suspected to have artificial structures on them.

Interpretation of psychic input can be tricky. In this one. I believe what he found are caves full of glow worms. Glow worms are native to New Zealand which is close to the site he was working on. It's an important find but I don't think it's indicative of an ancient culture or alien construction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u22j8qRCeP0 

Now this session is very interesting as well. It strongly indicates something happened and that there is artificial constructions. But is he castle building? ( Castle building happens when you begin to get a story line into the session. It's a product of your conscious mind and not from the signal line which gives accurate input. )  There are probably some inaccuracies in this session but he went so long into the session there has to be some accurate content as well. So can you tell when the signal line is lost and he's going into imagination land here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u22j8qRCeP0


Now that gives you an idea as to what Remote viewing can and cannot do. ERV and PSI ( phasing/projection) will not be any different just less detailed.

He also has a tutorial on remote viewing. It's a different structure than what I use but seems to work for him okay.

A word about the white board sessions. You will see lots of Remote viewing of the moon and sites and such on utube and the number is growing. People are using white boards for their sessions. This is not really how we do it. We use paper as you see in Edward's earlier sessions he has certain rituals with the pen to break contact when he uncovers and AOL ( thats when you catch your imagination playing with your information) and the probing or psychometry is done on the scribbles which are called ideograms.  These have to be saved  I do about 5 of them at the start then refer back to them if I get offtrack. using psychometry on your drawings is impossible when you are using a white board as you have to erase as you go.
The object of remote viewing is to find gestalts ( land, water, natural, manmade, biological, space) and describe them.

[Stillwater]

There was also a crustation like thing photographed by Curiousity. I wouldn't want to meet it in a dark ally.

That is one of the more interesting shots I have seen.

Normally when I see these things people point out, they are very obviously pareidolia- people looking to see whatever they want to see by looking for patterns in lots of random noise like images of rocks.

I will have to admit that really does look like some kind of arthropod. But the next step that forces to me... if that is what it is, what does it eat? Where are the martian versions of algaes or planktons or bugs or worms it is eating? Even in a desert landscape on earth, rarely do you run into one isolated animal, without other organisms somewhere in sight. It is strange to me there would be all these candidates for animal life people are seeing in the images, but not a single plant-like organism of any kind anywhere in sight...

Which is not to say there won't be interesting artifacts on Mars... I think we stand at least a decent chance of running into something novel, provided we searched a wide enough area. My best guess for what the first thing would be, if we ever found anything, would be something like a "von Neumman probe"- if other intelligences are exploring this galaxy, a self-replicating probe is the sort of thing that will likely be scattered everywhere; we are less than 100 years from being able to build such things ourselves most likely, and we aren't shy about broadcasting our technological developments, so given that we aren't likely to be unique, I assume the galaxy is littered with the damn things. The only question is... would they be car-sized, baseball-sized, marble-sized, or bacterium-sized? We might not really be looking for the right things, and for all we know, the earth itself is swarming with millions of inconspicuous bacterium-sized von Neumman probes too.

[Bluefirephoenix]

I think it's fossilized. Ive seen several other photos that have bits and pieces of what looks to be either the same organism or something similar to it. It probably wedged itself in that cave cleft and died there. The shell is identical in appearance to beached crabshells after they've been out of the water for a year or two. It's probably been out a lot longer than that and it has a fairly thick shell. There have been bits metal junk that look manufactured, rocks that look worked. They even have a similar style of edging. Looks like they used underground transportation.

Crustations like that on Earth are scavangers and not picky eaters. They have a good survival rate when conditions get bad in the ocean. 

Whoever was there is long gone and it looks like they were blown to bits.  The Cydonia remote viewing that's been done matches the work done by Bara. I don't the viewers were familiar with Mike Bara's work on Cydonia or Parrot city.

[jamie6747]

That is one of the more interesting shots I have seen.

Normally when I see these things people point out, they are very obviously pareidolia- people looking to see whatever they want to see by looking for patterns in lots of random noise like images of rocks.

I will have to admit that really does look like some kind of arthropod. But the next step that forces to me... if that is what it is, what does it eat? Where are the martian versions of algaes or planktons or bugs or worms it is eating? Even in a desert landscape on earth, rarely do you run into one isolated animal, without other organisms somewhere in sight. It is strange to me there would be all these candidates for animal life people are seeing in the images, but not a single plant-like organism of any kind anywhere in sight...

Which is not to say there won't be interesting artifacts on Mars... I think we stand at least a decent chance of running into something novel, provided we searched a wide enough area. My best guess for what the first thing would be, if we ever found anything, would be something like a "von Neumman probe"- if other intelligences are exploring this galaxy, a self-replicating probe is the sort of thing that will likely be scattered everywhere; we are less than 100 years from being able to build such things ourselves most likely, and we aren't shy about broadcasting our technological developments, so given that we aren't likely to be unique, I assume the galaxy is littered with the damn things. The only question is... would they be car-sized, baseball-sized, marble-sized, or bacterium-sized? We might not really be looking for the right things, and for all we know, the earth itself is swarming with millions of inconspicuous bacterium-sized von Neumman probes too.

What do you think of this one?


That was on the moon in the 60s

[Bluefirephoenix]

It looks interesting and needs to be checked out.

Here is another one of the crab critters on Mars. This one you can't see the legs but it's in the same sort of place. Hiding in a rock cleft with the caripice out.  http://gigapan.com/gigapans/117546/snapshots/464093  I'm not very good with the images on here. Xanth told me one time how to do it and I seem to have forgotten.

Here is the best crab on mars

http://planetxnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/crab-585x306.jpg

When I did the CRV session on the moon it came across like a dank stinky seedy side of a large downtown area. It was gross and had a wierd presence that I found uncomfortable. I thought originally that I was observing ground control after several days of not bathing and perhaps some heavy drinking. But I'm not sure now. Some aspects looked like it might be ground control and others were somewhere else. I could have missed the target and found something that entertained my subconscious more than the moon landing.

It bothers me that objects with unusual appearances are not checked out more carefully. The rover could have easily been bought a few feet closer and examine the questionable object. Yet the assumption is made without any evidence whatsoever that it's pareidolia. Assumptions are bad science.

[jamie6747]

Mars Was inhabited!

According to Ken Johnston, a Former National Aeronautics and Space Administration Data and Photo Control Department manager,  Apollo astronauts brought back photographic evidence of the artifacts they found during their lunar extravehicular activities (EVAs). Johnston claims NASA ordered him to destroy the EVA images while he was at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).


Is this an artifact on mars? This looks like a bent piece of steel.



Johnston asserts NASA discovered ancient ruins.

Is this an old pipe network on mars?

Moon base?
If you look at the side of the moon crater you will see what looks like a black object.

Former NASA employee, Donna Hare, has accused NASA of doctoring, obfuscating, and obscuring thousands of photos over the years. She has gone on record alleging the space agency erased inconvenient anomalies on certain damning photos.

[Bluefirephoenix]

They have doctored some of the pics for sure, but they've also left plenty of very telling photos. The crab being a good example of it. I think it's more like a trail of breadcrumbs. They put enough out in public to catch the eye of people who are looking for life but not enough to be super obvious. They let the military people out with the remote viewing ( and a few stories about aliens from the inside) but don't make any official statements.

If they wanted us completely in the dark they would not post anything.

What bothers me is the fact that they're not checking out things that need to be checked out.  Now that last video I posted really sucked but this a good one. Mike Bara is both a good speaker and a good writer. He gets to the point, makes his case and supports it. Whether or not you agree with him he's a good watch and a decent read. My only complaint is he gets a little gossipy in the book about people he thinks are hiding things. He has no idea why they are doing it and shows little empathy. If there is a high clearance attached to the material it's under a death threat or threat of charges of high treason which still carries the death penelty.

I think this is the updated video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqRwsoWdzWU if not it's in there somewhere

[jamie6747]

They have doctored some of the pics for sure, but they've also left plenty of very telling photos. The crab being a good example of it. I think it's more like a trail of breadcrumbs. They put enough out in public to catch the eye of people who are looking for life but not enough to be super obvious. They let the military people out with the remote viewing ( and a few stories about aliens from the inside) but don't make any official statements.

If they wanted us completely in the dark they would not post anything.

What bothers me is the fact that they're not checking out things that need to be checked out.  Now that last video I posted really sucked but this a good one. Mike Bara is both a good speaker and a good writer. He gets to the point, makes his case and supports it. Whether or not you agree with him he's a good watch and a decent read. My only complaint is he gets a little gossipy in the book about people he thinks are hiding things. He has no idea why they are doing it and shows little empathy. If there is a high clearance attached to the material it's under a death threat or threat of charges of high treason which still carries the death penelty.

I think this is the updated video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqRwsoWdzWU if not it's in there somewhere

I like the crab one, maybe mars was what earth is today, it might have had people on it, here is what a terraformed mars might look like. or maybe this is what mars did look like before it died.

[Stillwater]

What bothers me is the fact that they're not checking out things that need to be checked out.  Now that last video I posted really sucked but this a good one. Mike Bara is both a good speaker and a good writer. He gets to the point, makes his case and supports it. Whether or not you agree with him he's a good watch and a decent read. My only complaint is he gets a little gossipy in the book about people he thinks are hiding things. He has no idea why they are doing it and shows little empathy. If there is a high clearance attached to the material it's under a death threat or threat of charges of high treason which still carries the death penelty.

I think this is the updated video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqRwsoWdzWU if not it's in there somewhere

Watched Bara's video, and he does highlight some interesting anomalies on Mars and Phobos. I find the tetrahedral mountains in particular to be quite interesting. But honestly other times it feels like he is really grasping at straws, and it bothers me how convinced he is of his conclusion.

Here is an example:





What is this? Alien artifacts? Tool for manipulating space time?

It is crystalized Bismuth, a naturally occurring element.

Our universe is a splendid place, and it will surprise you again and again. It is full of baffling patterns that seem like they shouldn't have happened... but they do, and repeatedly. Proclaiming like Bara does here that something must have been the work of intelligent hands because it has geometry does not account for things like the above.

But I agree, they are still pretty cool, and more than worth investigation. Who really knows what they are... I think there will be a big movement toward the end of the century when rocketry has been a bit more privatized (as is the current trend) toward investigating some of these anomalies which NASA and ESA seem largely disinterested in.

------------

The second part of your quote here is interesting for a different reason. I have thought of this question a bit, off and on. Let's suppose that some group of government employees is aware of extraterrestrial life in some form. What are some logical reasons that would give them pause from sharing this information?

I can think of a few, and some of them may be legitimate.

For instance, say that the beings were known to be actively hostile in some way? Well, the government can offer no promise of protection from them. So they would be introducing a problem and a fear to the world to which they have no answer. I think most people would rather remain ignorant of a threat to which they had no protection, and in that sense those withholding information would be doing them a favor.

Suppose even less than that is known about them? Let us say that perhaps a government group is aware that their craft are visiting, and that they have inexplicably high operating methods. None of the occupants have ever been seen, and nothing is known about them at all, besides the fact that they exist. I think that too would be troubling to the population to be aware of. Other intelligent beings which hold humans in such low regard that they are not worth even talking to or declaring themselves. That bespeaks a frighteningly cold air to them, and there is no telling what they would be capable of, or what potential harm they might inflict. In all honesty this situation is much like the above. If you take it a few logical steps, you have given the public something to be deathly afraid of, and offer no solutions.

Suppose by some offchance these beings, which haven't declared themselves to the public in any direct way, were in fact in communication with governments, and they were overwhelmingly positive in their actions? Well from a government standpoint, I can see why you wouldn't want to go and tell people about them... it would make earth governments seen provincial and small by comparison. What is a government by definition? It is the group that holds the monopoly and sole right to the use of force in a defined geographic space. Government is defined by power. To admit you have power over quite little in comparison to what is available is quite embarrassing. The concept that the population has entire worlds they can visit, and places they can go to be outside of the jurisdiction of world governments entirely will cause people to immediately question the legitimacy of governments to rule over them.

So whatever the case is, should there be information on this subject that is indeed being withheld, I can think of convincing reasons why.

[Stillwater]

What do you think of this one?

That was on the moon in the 60s

Facehugger.



When I see images like the moon spider, the first thing I think is:

Ok, the obvious reading of the image and ones like it is a positive form- meaning the light-colored space in the image is all one object. Our visual processing in our brain makes this leap for us naturally.

So knowing that we have this subconscious bias, is there a chance it could actually be a negative form? Meaning the light colored space isn't a thing, but it is the absence of things (like a hole)? The light-colored region would be a part of the lunar surface that is either a different material, or is angled at such a direction as to be more reflective to light, and is being overlapped by darker crags and rocks.

Maybe the image is showing a dark object with light highlights around it... that is a harder argument to make, because the highlights seem pretty unlikely, but it is possible.

And finally... maybe it IS a robotic spider! Hard to really say which of the above it is. Most of the doubt arises from the resolution of the image.