Dêem uma vista de olhos na página que criei: Aqui. Ultimamente tenho andado entretido com a sua criação e com ataques de asma violentíssimos. Está especialmente direccionada (presentemente) para desmistificar uma polémica que tem rondado em torno de uma alegada nave espacial na lua.


  1. Greetings All.

    My name is José Pedro Gomes and my nick is Zé Tomes. Welcome to express ideas about Apollo 20 and the Spaceship controversy.


  2. It's unfortunate that English is so clearly not your first language because it doesn't help your arguments (or shall we say, speculation?). They are not convincing. Get someone to edit your page for English because impressions do make a difference.
    Now, before you laugh off the potential presence on the Moon of an object as suggested by the videos, let me assure you that neither its presence or lack of it have been completely established, yet. The reality of AS15-P-9625 (and a few others) is beyond doubt and is an independent confirmation of possibly something unusual at that location. Please, to convince us that something unusual is not there, do not give us fuzzier pictures, less resolution, feather-brushed images, and the like. The *only* way to prove it better one way on another is to show images of the site in *greater* resolution and clarity, not the other way around like some person on the web tried to do. Let's not insult anyone's intelligence on this and let's keep it civil. A debunker is not a skeptic. A skeptic suspends belief or disbelief until further evidence. A debunker is a believer in the opposite of what he is debunking. They are never the same.
    I applaud your search for truth, but please keep an open mind, and follow the scientific method. Be a skeptic, not a debunker.

  3. Yes, unfortunally i don't operate english the way I wish and sometimes the idea does not reach the expression. I did create the site not to stand facts, but to stand against alleged assertions or in my interpretation, dogmas that just don't have any reasonable stand.

    The site is not yet finished. I prefered to primarly stand the ideas as chapters and after that the ortographical revisions.

    I accept your sugestion and if you wish I would invite you to edit my page. It would be my pleasure.

    Even with major not edited errors, it's possibly to interpretate on my page that i don't laugh at the hypothesis of some alien artefact is being present to nowadays on the lunar surface: I deny the (not hypothesis) the assertion that AS15-P-9630's and etc. unknown "object" cannot be the same object intituled as spaceship present on retiredafb's videos.

    I don't prove that by my speculations as you say, instead, I give clues (hypothetical ones) that at least destroy it's dogma as an assertion. And retiredafb puts it on the table as a assertion not as a reasonable hypothesis. The path of retiredafb allegations go straight to a ridicule alley.

    The pictures I gave, were the ones the public saw by retiredafb's allegations, the enhanced and zoomed versions of AS15-P-9625/9630 were never shown by retiredafb's theory defenders. The ones i've manipulated are specifically assinalated as manipulations as also as the purpose of being manipoulated.

    the evidence is given either by retiredafb and his theory defenders simply cannot further be taken seriously unless faced as obvious frauds. Simply you have to be skeptic, and simply you have to debunk it as a farse otherwise ufology will always considered ridiculous, specially by such unreasonable allegations (without arguments that lead to another point of interrogation)

    The main keystone that AS15-S-9630's "object" is the "spaceship" shown on retiredafb's videos, is not valid. Cannot be faced as valid.

    Thank you for your commentary and pardon my erratic english.


  4. this could be even a prove from "them" (no, I'm not kidding and I do have a life besides ufo)

    there are a lot of pictures with aliens on it ... they always hide

    it is a very complicated subject

  5. I believe this kind of controversy without any considerable or plausible hypothesis, only makes more dificult a consideration for that hypothesis you just mentioned.

    It simply blows, and let's suppose that there are indeed pictures that had captured extraterrestrial traces, further investigation by a bad example of a ridiculous defense of an argument that just cannot stand or have reasonable assertions.

    It's malign either for ufology either for any truth.


  6. you must be new to ufology ... NOOOB!

  7. If you know already the truth, why are you still building your website ... or is it just for your ego? I think so!

    Why dont you start to analyze all the other facts and videos, given by retiredafb?

  8. My friend, I simply don't know the truth about extraterrestrial life. I have some valid hypothesis as panspermia (take a look at Kerala Red Rain) and the vast universe that simply cannot be dead in terms of what is called biology. There's too much space to not have other biological life forms. I have also the factual lies about several issues that have strategical meanings. Ufos and extraterrestrial life forms could be hiden from general opinion, but I simply cannot positively assert that, because I lack the proves. Roswell, Rendleshaw, Kecksburgh, etc are still being discussed by reasonable arguments and interventions. But, notice, they're being discussed by reasonable arguments and validations - that keeps in open the hypothesis.

    Of course my ego is present as also my person is present while the site is being created - It's me and my opinions together with some very valid people's interpretations.

    I'm still creating the site because i don't want to leave it incomplete, and not the least, because I do want to understand why Silicon Laude is conecting to retiredafb's allegations. Also, I think that even in a lesser way, my interpretations wich are based on my studies of arts, can contribute to prevent one's missinterpretations by optical illusion - the case of AS15-S-9630.

    From the first moment i did not want to analyse further allegations of retiredafb's videos but stayed focused on his keystone argumentation - the lunar object photographed on Apollo missions and the spaceship of retiredab's videos were the same. In my opinion if the primal allegation is false or incorrect, the next allegations at the better case would be suspicious.

    I think I've gathered enough hypothesis and material, that make unjustifiable further investigations of the case.

    Public opinion have to be skeptic when more than 50 % of retiredab's allegations were proved false (the video of the moon structure, the rejection of AS15-S-9630/25 enhanced version, the silence)

    Cheers and thanks for your opinion

  9. Thanks for your honest and kind remarks!

    Be patient , either mid November or late December we will now A LOT more - stay tuned!

  10. SiliconLaudes role in this case is, in my opinion, negligible.

  11. I will stay tuned. Thank you for your apreciation.

    I still don't know Silicon's Laude significance on market, also as the existence of their clients.

    Take a look at the correspondence between me and Silicon Laude:



  12. Tell yours conclusions to Richard C. Hoagland, in person @ LA, Hilton Nov 4, 2007: A filmed Documentary exposing "what NASA`s been hiding on the Moon", Be shure to see the introduction here

  13. Those are interesting allegations or hypothesis, but i'm afraid it doesn't give any plausible evidences. It's just valid on the field of the hypothesis not in field where allegations are supported by valid consistent and reasonable evidence.

    Darkmission.net in my opinion only gives sensascionalist speculations, not paradigmatic arguments or evidence.

    Remember one thing, higher the statement higher the needed reasonable evidence, or contra-argumentation, specially in this case: as the common cannot prove or disprove since he doesn't have acess to the tools for a field investigation.

  14. Hypothesis?

    Then explain this one ...


  15. The youtube links are out of date. Here is a page with updated links. I added your link to it as well since all views should be presented.

    There are two problems I have with your evaluations.

    The horizontal ridge proposal is a good one. However the forces creating such ridges usually create parellel ridges as well because geological terrains under such compressions rarely buckle in only one spot.

    Also the fishermans tale and your offerings of why our perceptions are altered to percieve a falsehood as truth imply the reader is not fully capable of deciding for themcselves. They are not relevent and I find them condenscending.

    I await further proof as I find both sides of this argument lacking in irrefutable evidence.

    The scale of the anomaly is such that I doubt if it is going to dissapear before it can be further examined. The Japenese SELENA probe team has promised to make all data public by sept. 2009.

    If they hold to that date then high resolution sterioscopic images may give the final answer on this.

    It is obvious that your evaluation was made with a conclusion in mind and not an investigation open to any other possibility. That is ok. Opposing views permitted.

  16. Greetings Bart

    First of all, pardon for my bad english

    Thank you for adding my link and pointing the out of date links.

    Unfortunelly for the moment I don't have acess to the internet and by so it's very difficult to update my webpage.

    I'm far away to be a geological expert (not even a green one), but i asked for several Lunar Institute's personel opinion. It resulted on the hypothesis exposed on my webpage.

    I agree with you when you say that "such compressions rarely buckle in only one spot". I cannot point you the links of the photographs capturing similar phenomenas as the "space moon" but i'm positivly sure they exist because it was already discussed on other forums (since i don't have acess to the internet - pontually and limited as i'm retrieving this post - i cannot search again for my self, but take a deep look on the sorrounding craters and you'll find similar ridges).

    I did use some of my knowledge (based on visual perception - part of my field of work - illustration and design) to stand a point but not a fact and condescence. It's very usual (myself also) for a person to be "fooled" by an optical illusion (i was in the first episodes of this case), and since i'm not fond that a person became ashamed by his mistakes (mistakes are lights to knowledge in my opinion), i started to cut by pieces the solid hypothesis that could lead to the visual mistake (publicity uses this kind of tools everyday, every moment). From here, Gestalt, Rorshach, Surrealism, etc.

    I tried to make fun of my own mistake.

    I will wait for Selena photos, and i wish I'm wrong, because I too want to see some prove that extraterrestrial and inteligent life exists or existed somewhere in the universe.

    My evaluation (the finalization of the skeleton of my page) was wraped in a contra-fundamentalism conclusion, because the first people involved in this case where so irrationally pragmatic and fundamentalist that, i felt that i should criticize their stands not by asserting a fact, but a reasonable doubt to their facts.

    I'm searching for Ets since i remember (perfectly amateur), but i'm afraid this case is not the case - i wish i t was.

    Thank you for your post and contribution to the debate!


    Zé Tomes

  17. Hi,

    Could you help me to find out which official website published the following picture that from this page(http://tasfastas.googlepages.com/apollo20-pseudospaceship2232222).


    I'm looking forward for your reply...

    Thanks a lot!

  18. Greetings. Here is the source of the photo:



  19. Hi José,

    I am very interest in the Apollo 20 event happened since 2007. I also did some research about this and viewed your points on this site. I can see that you are a responsible researcher no matter the conclusion is right or wrong.But I have some advices and questions about your analyses on the comparison between snapshots of apollo videos and AS15-P9630/9625.

    1. Before you draw the conclusion, you have to make sure the possible apollo 20 flying route(including flying altitude) is as same as the Apollo 15's. Because this will affect the shooting angle on the objects which will either hide or expose more or less targets on the moon land. Also, you need to compare the exact time between the shooting period of the possible apollo 20 and Apollo 15, because this will change the angle of sun's illumination on objects of the moon surface. From your analysis on this page (http://sites.google.com/site/tasfastas/apollo20-pseudospaceship2232222), I can see some objects are not comparable for the shadows affected by the sun light between "AP15" and "AP20", are from different angles. The best way to prove it is to contact the video poster (retiredafb) looking for answers which seems a little difficult but more professional.

    2. On the same page again (http://sites.google.com/site/tasfastas/apollo20-pseudospaceship2232222), There is a obvious scale difference on the nose portions between "The Rocket" and "The Whale", which makes me think that you might need to put the two possible same objects at a similar or same scale, so that they can be compared more accurately.


  20. Greetings Agate,

    I lost my interest and rested my case on this subject since in my opinion, i got into the conclusion not only be my research but also by retiredafb's atitude and the mixture of obvious false with dubious data, that this case is indeed
    closed because it's an hoax.

    1. I don't think this will be necessary because my focus was in the comparison between the original AP15/20 and both Rocket and Whale crater sharpness, taking that as a rule of scale. If one crater would have "some" sharpness on both AP15/20 the same sharpness would be the present as the rule to focus both Rocket and Whale possibility of them being the same object, which obviously it is shown they aren't.

    2. The Scale was measured taking in consideration the sharpness of the craters present on both 4 pictures, zooming them in relation to the sharpness.

    I've contacted not only retiredafb, but also spaceheroes.org and Luca (the italian writer that interviewd retiredafb) and the israeli fella. His research is also based on my data which was also based on other
    people's data (the original zoomed AP15/20 photos). We changed a lot of opinions while retiredafbs was unreacheable, only in contact with him, Luca Scantamburlo. At some point I quited insisting on the absurd of the paradox. Luca Scantamburlo was obviously believing (not demanding reason) in retiredafb, even if his statements where increasingly becoming fallacious and paradoxical. Like retiredafb, spaceheroes, the israelli fella, Luca Scantamburlo was also falling on the economical question
    behind this: money, books, conspiracy literature without fundaments and continuous paradoxical data. It's much more easy to sell easy conspiracy literature (after all, a spaceship on the moon is a very interesting subject, in this case a very good science fiction theme) without proof, than to scrutinize it dealing with the serious possibility that all of this is nothing but a fun and good viral marketing made by retiredafb. It's difficult to accept that one might be fooled either by visual aspects of human perception, either by a social contemporary phenomena named viral marketing, either by admiting that what one feels as true not necessarily is.

    The diference between me and them, is that I continued to question not taking for certain the original statements, in dogmatic terms, that there was a spaceship on the moon, and it was the "object" present in AP15/20 photos.




Enviar um comentário

Mensagens populares