Okay, after some time at this site: http://cps.earth.northwestern.edu/LO/
I was able to find several, interesting things which think are much more interesting than some of the older anomalies found by Richard Hoagland. The site above simply has the highest quality .TIFF Lunar Orbiter images I've ever seen. Below are some of the strange thing's I've found thus far. Due to the quality of the images you are able to get down and actually see some surface elements typically not noticable on older/lower quality images.

http://img98.exs.cx/img98/4198/screenhunter0092sc.jpg

The one above features what can only be called a cut out area with bridges going across it. If you can't find it (because it is a bit subtle) I can circle it.

http://img98.exs.cx/img98/2514/screenhunter0066uz.jpg

Looks like a damn spotlight.. I've tried to think of everything else it could be or how something else is fooling me, but it looks so damn obvious... lol. Anyone wanna try to debunk it? Surely NASA saw it.

Uhhh, perhaps it's just a sketchy black&white photo of moon rocks?

Anyone have a real substantive response?

BTW It's the highest quality image of it's kind. ;)

Here's a bit easier to see version of the first one:

http://img17.exs.cx/img17/7084/screenhunter0083pn.jpg

If you consider yourself a debunker and are close minded, then don't bother wasting anyones time. If you are a skeptic and take offense to me thinking you might be close minded - then tell me one anomalous image you have seen that actually did look anomalous to you, and still does.

A debunking skeptic literally think there are no anomalous images. What do you think?

looks like a bunch of rocks casting shadows to me

Could you point out which rocks are casting which shadows?

>>>>What do you think?

i think i must be a skeptic. just look like rocks with sunlight on one side and the shadows on the other.

The first image has bridges going across a depression. The bridges shadow can be seen going across the bottom of the depression.

In the second image, I see a brilliantly lit light or object that is a perfect sphere.

It's just moon rocks. Can we move this junk to Pseudoscience?

If you can't prove it's nothing but a rock, then you're response is the junk.

If moving this would help me to get some legit responses then, I would be glad to.

>>>>..... to get some legit responses then....

you've got them....it's just rocks. oh you mean agree that they are structures and signs of civilisations either extant or extinct. i'm sorry i can't do that
.....

Because you're close minded... So carry on, and get lost then.

And don't come back with crap that you are open minded, UNLESS you can name 1 SINGLE ANOMALY IN SPACE that you think is unexplainable.

>>>>And don't come back with crap that you are open minded, UNLESS you can name 1 SINGLE ANOMALY IN SPACE that you think is unexplainable.

yes sir!

:D

:D

"Reporting For Duty"?

If you consider yourself a debunker and are close minded, then don't bother wasting anyones time.

If you think you're being innovative and observant by citing "bridges" on a world that only a few people have visited a handfull of times, or that someone forgot to turn off a spotlight (a large rock with the Sun's illumination judging by the shadow), then don't waste our time.

You're making some very extraordinary claims and merely providing some blurry black and white photos of rocks, which you say are the best you've seen.

I'm more inclined to discuss the power of belief and what drives people to look for extraordinary explanations for ordinary things. Your thread got dumped in the right forum.

Boris2 and RedDevil might remember the passage in Demon Haunted World where Sagan discusses the natural ability and tendency of people to look for patterns... a similar phenomenon is common among those that see cities and monuments on Mars.

Interesting photo's, though this place is riddled with chronic skeptics.


Try,

www.anomalyhunters.com

Well it _is_ the Pseudoscience section of a Science board.

Not the science section of a Pseudoscience board. :cool:

If you can't prove it's nothing but a rock, then you're response is the junk.

_I_ can't prove? You're the one making the claims, the onus of proof is on you. You can't proove I'm not god, and that I know I only put a rock there, so the idea of the other providing counter proof is a bit bogus, and well, worthy of pseudoscience!

[quoteIf moving this would help me to get some legit responses then, I would be glad to.[/QUOTE]

Nope, you won't get any legit respones to your post, because you're seeing things. Pseudoscience is just where we put all the crap that uses words too long for the cesspool.

Just rocks. It's an accepted fact, so you're [btimsah] the one who has to have proof about bridges.

I must admit, the photo of the "Bridges" does look like some kind of bridge,structure.

What we need is clearer photos!, hopefully these new probes will take some higher quality photos of the moon.

If you think you're being innovative and observant by citing "bridges" on a world that only a few people have visited a handfull of times, or that someone forgot to turn off a spotlight (a large rock with the Sun's illumination judging by the shadow), then don't waste our time.

You're making some very extraordinary claims and merely providing some blurry black and white photos of rocks, which you say are the best you've seen.

I'm more inclined to discuss the power of belief and what drives people to look for extraordinary explanations for ordinary things. Your thread got dumped in the right forum.

Boris2 and RedDevil might remember the passage in Demon Haunted World where Sagan discusses the natural ability and tendency of people to look for patterns... a similar phenomenon is common among those that see cities and monuments on Mars.

Skinwalker, I thank God you're not running NASA. It would be their job to find these type of buildings USING EXACTLY THESE LOW QUALITY IMAGES. The idea that finding vehicles or buildings built by an alien civilization is crazy, represents the arrogance that now run's mainstream science.

In the end it is you're debunking skeptical mindset which will not allow you to EVER consider that anomalies do exist within the lunar orbiter series exist and even further.

Using the debunker's logic there are no anomalies because everything is just a pile of rocks.

Please - you're the ones wasting our time. You're response is the waste of time.

Oh yeah, and from satelite every building on Earth looks like a pile of rocks with shadows. Who do you think you're kidding?

Actually, it is you who is wasting your own time. If you want to
speculate on your photo, have fun. But it certainly does not even
meet the barest minimum standard of proof that science would
require. Don't misunderstand; many of us believe there could
well be life beyond earth. We just have not seen proof as yet.

:m: Peace.

If you can't name one anomaly that you found interesting - then you are close minded and wasting everyones time.

You don't have to respond and if you do, knowing you are going to claim it's nothing but a pile of rocks - then IT'S YOUR TIME.

I have found NUMEROUS anomalies on the Moon and the Asteroid Eros which could be something important. It's you're inability to have an open mind and learn another phrase other than, "some rocks" which wastes everyones time.

Nice try to turn this around on me - but it's not my fault you and a lot of people on here are too close minded to handle it.

BTW - Here are some of the ones found on Eros..

http://img88.exs.cx/img88/3149/erosgrid2ao.gif

Can anyone explain the perfect grid across the face of the "ROCK"?

I don't know that any of you will, so if you don't know then just say it's a pile of rocks.

Please show a single proof that they are buildings or bridges.
Additionally, where on Northwester's site are the images you
are showing us. Those in this thread are not hosted there.

:m: Peace.

woops.. site's getting laggy.

Some see craterchains, some see bridges, some see little jumping sheep.
Why do I see only "bloody" moon-rock in those pictures?
Ah, maybe because it is just moon-rock?!

Its just a bunch of rocks.

Your mind i jsut palyign tricks on you... Oh wow, the cloud is shaped exactly like a donkey... Does it mean it is a donkey?

Report your 'anomalies' to NASA, see if they care, see if they just say its just a bunch of rocks... Are they then close minded? I do not presume so...

Using the debunker's logic there are no anomalies because everything is just a pile of rocks.

Please - you're the ones wasting our time. You're response is the waste of time.

STFU, Fluid.

I must admit, the photo of the "Bridges" does look like some kind of bridge,structure.

What we need is clearer photos!, hopefully these new probes will take some higher quality photos of the moon.

EXACTLY, star_one! I was wondering when those would start sending us images?

The other people are just pretending not to see anything really.. lol. It's their M.O.

I might do a higher-quality examination of the bridge one because it is a bit faint. However, you can see it rather obviously if some would allow themselves too! :D

I've got a better evidence for moon structures than you!

http://www.planit3d.com/source/gallery_files/lyne/moonbase.jpg

Report your 'anomalies' to NASA, see if they care, see if they just say its just a bunch of rocks... Are they then close minded? I do not presume so...

I've thought about reporting this too NASA to ask if they've seen such things before. Problem is, they may have a security policy in place in which they would not be allowed to discuss such thing's? :confused: The testimony of Donna Hare and Carl Wolf who worked at NASA and the NSA both say NASA does cover up certain things.

I've tried to contact NASA before but typically I get some clueless person who responds about a year later, claiming no knowlege. Doesnt help much.

One would have to assume NASA has seen these interesting formations.

Even if some of you are trying to write them off as rocks - back in the 1960's I don't believe NASA could do that. You could only write these off as rocks if you knew for a fact that ALIENS DO NOT EXIST. Otherwise there is a slight possibility they are NOT ROCKS and possibly something else due to the unusual nature of their formation and apperance. ;)

due to the unn nature of their formation and apperance.
Please highlight in the pictures the places that seem unnatural to you and are not met naturally on earth or some other celestial body.

Ok here is the image inverted. I fail to see any outlines of these "shadows" given the angle of the sun.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3601&stc=1

Here's what I get after running the image through the latest image enhancement algorithm, obtained from a contact on the CSI set:

<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3603&stc=1>

Ok here is the image inverted. I fail to see any outlines of these "shadows" given the angle of the sun.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3601&stc=1

http://img113.exs.cx/img113/5885/screenhunter008e8mw.jpg

Inverting it did not really matter either. It just reversed the values, but the lines going across the depression still existed.

yes! i see the line!

Oh yeah, that does look like a bridge. I saw it.

Now I'm a believer!

Baring the debunking trolls that slug around this site looking for stuff to debunk... :p

The brightly lit object anomaly appears on Lunar Orbiter image:
LO5-70-H2C and can be found at: http://cps.earth.northwestern.edu/LO/

BTW - Here are some of the ones found on Eros..

Can anyone explain the perfect grid across the face of the "ROCK"?



I don't see a perfect grid. I see a rock with a few dings in it, that's all.

What do you think these are, btw;

http://users.volja.net/rkamnik/222%20giants%20causeway.jpg

I think it's perhaps some sort or array, created for some reason by some large intelligent being. What purpose could it have?

I think it's perhaps some sort or array, created for some reason by some large intelligent being. What purpose could it have?

Perhaps it is similar to this:

http://img12.exs.cx/img12/476/LeM-CompressionOrder.jpg

Mysterious forces from beyond. Obviously.

Invert, stop providing evidence that supports his claims.

http://theapostleofgod.com/mov/tmp/tmpfull/0561.jpg

If there are structures on the moon, they were probably built by an earlier advanced civilization on Earth and not by aliens. Van Danikan gave us a lot of information in his books but he got it wrong about the source of the anomolies. It was not aliens, it was us.

He got it really wrong - no structures.

[QUOTE=btimsah]I've thought about reporting this too NASA to ask if they've seen such things before. Problem is, they may have a security policy in place in which they would not be allowed to discuss such thing's? :confused: The testimony of Donna Hare and Carl Wolf who worked at NASA and the NSA both say NASA does cover up certain things.


Its not a very good cover up is it?Why would they release the pictures if they've got something to hide?
NASA would welcome any extra funding so why would they cover something like this up?Imagine how much money they would get to investigate this if it really was something?

I suspect ,like the face on Mars,NASA looked at this saw nothing extraordinary and moved on.

Gort, NASA has to release these images. They are our images. However, I do believe they can censor some images due to matters of national security.

This game can be played all day, as it appears some of you live for.

The other images are nothing but lame attempts at debunkery. :rolleyes:

If anyone has any real responses, or something of substance it'd be cool to hear it. Otherwise you would be wasting everyones time.

If these images I posted, looked like they were really just rocks - then there would not have been the large number of responses.

Just looking for something besides speculation. What is the scale of your
photos, and based on that, how big are your bridges or your floodight?

:m: Peace.

_I_ can't prove? You're the one making the claims, the onus of proof is on you. You can't proove I'm not god, and that I know I only put a rock there, so the idea of the other providing counter proof is a bit bogus, and well, worthy of pseudoscience!

If you can't prove it's a rock, then I can't prove it's something unknown. Nice try though.

And yes, THIS IS THE PSEUDOSCIENCE area.

Just looking for something besides speculation. What is the scale of your
photos, and based on that, how big are your bridges or your floodight?

:m: Peace.

Well, seeing as how this is in Pseudoscience, I have nothing but speculation. I have no idea how large these area's are. I am not an imaging expert, but I do believe there's a way to figure out.

I am not an imaging expert,

No shit.

I have no idea how large these area's are...

So, we could be looking at something the size of basketball as far as
you know. A bit small for a bridge or a building, wouldn't you say?

:m: Peace.

It's threads like this that continue to give this subject its bad reputation.

For anyone thinking future technology will be able to pick up any such anomolies, think again.

If there are any anomolies on the moon, you can bet your ass that the powers that be already know they're there and they won't be in any rush to publicize these findings.

Thank you btimsah. Prior to reading your excellent posts I had been unaware of any anomalies associated with the Lunar Orbiter photographs. It is not an area I had paid any attention to. Inspired by the photos that accompanied your lucid description I now realise that quite staggering anomalies do in fact exist.
Certainly I was aware of the Face on Mars, but what you have presented here is an order of magnitude above that. I had not realised, until now, that a supposedly adult, presumably educated, human being could so delude themselves into believing that some ordinary photographs of the lunar surface contained evidence of artificial constructions. It is, without doubt, the largest anomaly of its kind I have ever encountered.
Please don't label me now as a debunker. There is nothing here to debunk. This isn't just poor science (well actually, it's non-existent science), it is the worst pseudo-science I have ever seen. I am amazed that you are not curling up in embarrassment at such a patheticaly weak attempt.

Thank you btimsah. Prior to reading your excellent posts I had been unaware of any anomalies associated with the Lunar Orbiter photographs. It is not an area I had paid any attention to. Inspired by the photos that accompanied your lucid description I now realise that quite staggering anomalies do in fact exist.
Certainly I was aware of the Face on Mars, but what you have presented here is an order of magnitude above that. I had not realised, until now, that a supposedly adult, presumably educated, human being could so delude themselves into believing that some ordinary photographs of the lunar surface contained evidence of artificial constructions. It is, without doubt, the largest anomaly of its kind I have ever encountered.
Please don't label me now as a debunker. There is nothing here to debunk. This isn't just poor science (well actually, it's non-existent science), it is the worst pseudo-science I have ever seen. I am amazed that you are not curling up in embarrassment at such a patheticaly weak attempt.

The embarrassment here is you're stupidity, or inability to read a thread. I've never said these are alien structures. :D Haha.. figures. Embarrassed?

I was asking what are they? If I get a bunch of, "looks like rocks" that does not tell anyone a damn thing. That's like telling a cop the robber looked like a human. What kind of rocks? What kind of natural process could create this? Why is the object lit so much brighter than the object's that surround it? What kind of rocks would create the illusion of bridges across a depression?

The idea that everything on the Moon or even Mars is made up of ROCKS seriously misses the point and illustrates the laziness of almost everyone who tries pathetically to debunk anything on this board.

The mere fact that you so quickly assumed I was claiming anything speaks volumes about the jadded, arrogant nature of most of the debunker's on here.

So, let me know when you have something of substance. Something that actually applies to the thread and something not so embarassing for you.

I am not certain that you deserve the effort of a reply, but for the sake of entertainment, at least I'll give it a bash. Let's look at each point you raise.
The embarrassment here is you're stupidity, or inability to read a thread. I've never said these are alien structures. :D Haha.. figures. Embarrassed?

Given my pointed ridicule of your position, this is a reasonable riposte. However, there are two points of factual error in this quote:
1. I am not stupid. My educational achievments and IQ establish this by any commonly accepted standard. I shall be charitable and assume you were merely being insulting.
2. I believe you have said these are alien structures. I quote you in reference to one of the photographs. "The one above features what can only be called a cut out area with bridges going across it." Bridges are very definitely alien to the moon!


I was asking what are they? If I get a bunch of, "looks like rocks" that does not tell anyone a damn thing. That's like telling a cop the robber looked like a human. What kind of rocks? What kind of natural process could create this? Why is the object lit so much brighter than the object's that surround it? What kind of rocks would create the illusion of bridges across a depression?
Provide us with the details of the photographs: altitude, sun angle, lunar lat/long, scale etc and we can answer these questions. Without that data it is frivolous to even ask the question. I will take a provisional stab at your last two questions, however.
The object is lit so much brighter than its surroundings because it is standing above its surroundings, and may well be of a different composition. Neither of these, commonplace, circumstances can in any way be considered anomalous.
The illusion of bridges across a depression is a subjective interpretation of of an objective reality. The key word is illusion. You see this particular illusion, almost nobody else does. There is no case to answer.
The idea that everything on the Moon or even Mars is made up of ROCKS seriously misses the point and illustrates the laziness of almost everyone who tries pathetically to debunk anything on this board.
So share with us, what is the point. If you wish to pretend to be a scientist, then pretend to offer your thoughts with clarity and concision, not vagueness and bluster. The inadequate quality of your presentation thus far informs all of us exactly where the laziness lies.

Give us something of substance and we shall provide a substantial reply.

Good post, Ophiolite. Personally, I think fluid629 is back under a different user name.

Good post, Ophiolite. Personally, I think fluid629 is back under a different user name.

You're wrong again Skin Walker. I was trying to figure out what the hell you meant by, "STFU Fluid" in an earlier post. At first, I thought you were just one of those angry debunker's.

Well, I suppose that's still correct but no I am not fluid. Never posted anything here cept this.

Now, ignore everything above and just respond with a cheap insult. Keep the personality consistant.

Ha! You've presented nothing to debunk.

The worst suggestion you made was in your initial post where you said, "Looks like a damn spotlight.. I've tried to think of everything else it could be or how something else is fooling me, but it looks so damn obvious... lol"
It didn't occur to you that the shadows of the rocks in front of the "spotlight" are going the wrong way. Just to clue you in, the imager probably wasn't able to accurately show differences in bright/dark areas in one image, which causes the most brightly lit regions to become washed out. You get the same effect from a cheap digital camera if you try to take a picture of a subject both sunlit and shaded. Moeover, the shape of the "spotlight's" shadow offers its true form.

If you think me insulting or offensive, bear in mind that kooks spouting their speculative rants on a science board in search of mutual admiration societies whilst snapping at posters who are critical of their so-called "theories" gets tiresome. Fluid did much the same thing and didn't go away for some time. I'm still not convinced you aren't fluid, but I concede it is entirely possible you are two separate woo-woo's.

I am not certain that you deserve the effort of a reply, but for the sake of entertainment, at least I'll give it a bash. Let's look at each point you raise.

Given my pointed ridicule of your position, this is a reasonable riposte. However, there are two points of factual error in this quote:
1. I am not stupid. My educational achievments and IQ establish this by any commonly accepted standard. I shall be charitable and assume you were merely being insulting.
2. I believe you have said these are alien structures. I quote you in reference to one of the photographs. "The one above features what can only be called a cut out area with bridges going across it." Bridges are very definitely alien to the moon!

Provide us with the details of the photographs: altitude, sun angle, lunar lat/long, scale etc and we can answer these questions. Without that data it is frivolous to even ask the question. I will take a provisional stab at your last two questions, however.
The object is lit so much brighter than its surroundings because it is standing above its surroundings, and may well be of a different composition. Neither of these, commonplace, circumstances can in any way be considered anomalous.
The illusion of bridges across a depression is a subjective interpretation of of an objective reality. The key word is illusion. You see this particular illusion, almost nobody else does. There is no case to answer.

So share with us, what is the point. If you wish to pretend to be a scientist, then pretend to offer your thoughts with clarity and concision, not vagueness and bluster. The inadequate quality of your presentation thus far informs all of us exactly where the laziness lies.

Give us something of substance and we shall provide a substantial reply.

I have NEVER written that they are alien structures. You assumed that, and still do.

As for anything of substance. The object you claim is a rock, is too linear to be a rock. Far to large and appears to be almost* perfectly oval in shape.

The object appears to be metallic on it's right side. Almost identicle to a thick coin.

NO I am not saying it has to be alien. I am saying that it does not look natural. Or to use a better term, not a rock.

Now, in the end it does not matter. I know you debunker's will never accept anything like this so why bother?

The Debunker's Delight:

#1.) The burden of proof is always on the woo-woo making a sensational claim, even when he or she is not making a claim. Cause them to get frustrated.

#2.) After a woo-woo gets banned or leaves a discussion, chant the following 3 times: “Mundane Claims Win The Day, Mundane Claims Win The Day, Mundane Claims Win The Day”.

#3.) None of you’re claims need to be proven, because you’re not the one making a sensational claim. Keep repeating this to yourself so as to make sure the woo-woo can’t ever challenge you.

#4.) If you let a woo-woo go, without impugning or attacking them personally, then you are not doing it correctly. You must find them stupid, and inferior.

#5.) Woo-woo’s are stupid and inferior.

#6.) A sensational claim is only wrong, if it’s presented by a woo-woo, or someone not as educated as yourself. If a fellow debunker presents a sensational claim, pretend the idea has merrit. (Take one for the team)

#7.) Always explain away a UFO as natural, remember you don’t have to prove anything. If you claim it’s something natural, the burden of proof is on them to prove it’s not natural. This way you can claim it’s anything.

#8.) The truth can be our enemy, if the truth supports a sensational claim. It’s then you’re job to distort or confuse the truth so as to support a more mundane explanation.

#9.) Don’t ever offer words of support, or agreement with a woo-woo. Constantly attack, harass and confuse them. Remember how much smarter, and more important you are than a stupid woo-woo.

#10.) Visit www.badastronomy.com and find a woo-woo to be destroyed. Search the banned list to reminisce and enjoy you’re past work. If the banned user’s list does not exist create one. Use this to compare other woo-woo’s to past ones.

Ha! You've presented nothing to debunk.

The worst suggestion you made was in your initial post where you said, "Looks like a damn spotlight.. I've tried to think of everything else it could be or how something else is fooling me, but it looks so damn obvious... lol"
It didn't occur to you that the shadows of the rocks in front of the "spotlight" are going the wrong way. Just to clue you in, the imager probably wasn't able to accurately show differences in bright/dark areas in one image, which causes the most brightly lit regions to become washed out. You get the same effect from a cheap digital camera if you try to take a picture of a subject both sunlit and shaded. Moeover, the shape of the "spotlight's" shadow offers its true form.

If you think me insulting or offensive, bear in mind that kooks spouting their speculative rants on a science board in search of mutual admiration societies whilst snapping at posters who are critical of their so-called "theories" gets tiresome. Fluid did much the same thing and didn't go away for some time. I'm still not convinced you aren't fluid, but I concede it is entirely possible you are two separate woo-woo's.

I am sure Fluid was never as arrogant as you try to be.

btimsah, you'd better respond to my post before you fire off again at SkinWalker, or I'll think you don't love me anymore! Or, are you about to retreat from the battle because, as SkinWalker says, you have nothing to debunk.
If you feel you are being ganged up on, you are not. In Carl Sagan's words extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hell, I'd settle for any evidence in this instance.


Edit: Obvious overlap in posts. I'm charmed.

How.. or why would you automatically try to debunk them - If there's nothing to debunk?

btimsah, you'd better respond to my post before you fire off again at SkinWalker, or I'll think you don't love me anymore! Or, are you about to retreat from the battle because, as SkinWalker says, you have nothing to debunk.
If you feel you are being ganged up on, you are not. In Carl Sagan's words extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hell, I'd settle for any evidence in this instance.


Edit: Obvious overlap in posts. I'm charmed.

I am not making an extraorinary claim, you wish I was. I am saying those objects LOOK LIKE they MIGHT be something of interest. And - If there's nothing to debunk - then WHY IN THE HELL have you guy's been debunking me? :D

Arrghg! Perhaps I just posted the images to get some calm discussion about natural events that could cause them and even suggest they are alien? Oh no! :confused:

I have NEVER written that they are alien structures. You assumed that, and still do.

Can you read? OF course you can. Will you read? In this instance apparently not. Please consider your actual words.
"The one above features what can only be called a cut out area with bridges going across it."
I have been reading books and articles on the moon for over forty years, across the spectrum from peer reviewed research papers to National Enquirer speculation. Never , in all of those many thousands of words have I encountered a reference to bridges on the moon. The overwhelming, indeed the unanimous view, of those many investigators and reporters appears to be that bridges are not native to the moon. Therefore they are alien to the moon. Are you denying this, or are you rettracting your original statement?

As for anything of substance. The object you claim is a rock, is too linear to be a rock.
Now that is amusing. Do tell me where I claim the object is a rock. Again I shall be charitable and assume you are confusing me with one of the other posters. I don't mind being accused of thinking it is a rock. I should probably be offended if you suggested I thought otherwise.
The object you claim is a rock, is too linear to be a rock. Far to large and appears to be almost* perfectly oval in shape.
The object appears to be metallic on it's right side. Almost identicle to a thick coin.

I trained as a geologist. This training included interpretation of aerial photographs. I know what a ****ing rock looks like. This looks like a ****ing rock.
Where did you get this bizarre, uneducated idea that a rock cannot be linear? How can you tell it is far too large, when you have provided no information as to scale? Again, where did you get the bizarre idea that rocks could not be oval?

Your list, titled Debunker's Delight, shows that there may be a tiny vestige of hope for you. Address the points I have raised above, intelligently, and the hope will grow.

Well I wasn't trying to debunk anything. I was showing you why I think every you see is just a pile of rocks and boulders. Regardless of your stance on the shadows, its is wrong. It's a pretty simple task to look at the angles and see where a bridges shadow should be. Given that the ground like low area, that's all.

I am not making an extraorinary claim, you wish I was. I am saying those objects LOOK LIKE they MIGHT be something of interest. And - If there's nothing to debunk - then WHY IN THE HELL have you guy's been debunking me? :D

Arrghg! Perhaps I just posted the images to get some calm discussion about natural events that could cause them and even suggest they are alien? Oh no! :confused:
Let me walk through your remarks.
Point1: You are making an extraordinary claim: you are stating that some perfectly ordinary photographs of lunar features are in some way anomalous. You have failed to demonstrate any anomaly in the examples you have so far provided. I certainly do find it extraordinary that you can make such claims in the absence of any evidence.
btimsah, you do not know me and have no way of independently determining my veracity, so you can choose to reject the next statements. I cannot readily prove them to be true. I am considered by my peers and superiors to have an extremely fertile imagination, to see possible relationships between quite diverse events/phenomena, to discern patterns in apparently chaotic data. I cannot see anything out of the ordinary in what you have presented. I have looked at your data with a wide open mind. For me this is not an either-or situation - hmm, there might be something intersting there. This is a non-event, a no-show; Elvis hasn't left the building, he was never there in the first place.

Point 2: I wish you were making sense.
Point 3: I think most objects on the moon are interesting, because they are on the moon.
Point 4: Pointing out that there is nothing there is not debunking as I understand it, unless you wish to re-define debunking.

Can we presume that the images are taken perpendicular to the lunar surface at the target point? I'm not sure we can.

The "bridges" image only looks like bridges if we make that presumption, based on the length of the light-colored stripes and another presumption that the half-ring shadow in the lower left of the "trench" actually represents a shadow in a trench.

However the "bridges" image in the smaller version actually implies an optical illusion ... I'm trying to remember what it's called so I can provide an online example, but I'm having trouble visualizing this basic concept at the moment. It happens when you attempt to represent three dimensions in two; some shapes suggest that they can be either "coming out of" or "going into" the frame. (Ah ... see "Ambiguous Cubes (http://www.scientificpsychic.com/graphics/)", or simply draw an outline of an opaque cube on a piece of paper.) The structure could easily be a mound instead of a trench. The detail you provided with the points labeled for those who missed them reinforces my perception that there's a mound in there.

As to the second image, I see what you're after, but I think it's just shadowplay. The brightly-lit side is one plane of a large structure that suggests a basic (polygonal) pyramid structure similarly implied in some sand dunes. What appears to be light "behind" the structure is just the result of anomalies in the basic shape. More interesting to me, in the large .tif at 5-70-h2c is that nifty liquid distortion effect. More seriously, though, the structure still looks like a basic pyramid shape.

I am sure Fluid was never as arrogant as you try to be.

In otherwords, you agree with the assessment I posted (you quoted).

I have NEVER written that they are alien structures. You assumed that, and still do.

So they were made by humans then? Or, are you saying it's a natural formation that looks a bit like a bridge? If it's the latter, so what? The former is a preposterous idea, so what are you saying?

The object you claim is a rock, is too linear to be a rock.

Riiiight. And the image I posted? Those are too linear to be just rocks are they? See where I was going with that now?

NO I am not saying it has to be alien. I am saying that it does not look natural.

So not natural, not alien, that leaves man made. Eh? We went all the way to the moon, and the Apollo astronauts built a bridge to drive their rover over did they? Get a grip kid.

First off, the most fundamentally important thing when you look at an image, is to ask yourself 'What am I looking at'. Some of this is easy to answer, 'A picture of the Moon'. But then, the next question, is 'what scale is this image' and that has been touched upon. And boy, are you going to be more than a bit embarrassed when you do stop being lazy, and go find out that information.

But such is the way of the WooWoo. Too lazy to find out all the facts, a quick glance at an image, and then the flights of fancy come forth, before any validating facts are sought.

Dood_2000,

I deleted all of your posts in this thread because firstly the Font was appauling and secondly the blant "GO TO MY SITE" in big fonts is an attempt to advertise. It's all very well pointing to a paper you've written, or having your website explain in more detail your thoughts, however such blatent advertisement is unacceptable for many reasons I'm not going to express here.

Please attempt to use a "Userfriendly" font in the future and refrain from abuse/advertisements.

As for this thread, I've pruned all of the posts to do with the bickering over the site and font of Dood_2000, perhaps you can get back to the discussion.

Let me walk through your remarks.
Point1: You are making an extraordinary claim: you are stating that some perfectly ordinary photographs of lunar features are in some way anomalous. You have failed to demonstrate any anomaly in the examples you have so far provided. I certainly do find it extraordinary that you can make such claims in the absence of any evidence.
btimsah, you do not know me and have no way of independently determining my veracity, so you can choose to reject the next statements. I cannot readily prove them to be true. I am considered by my peers and superiors to have an extremely fertile imagination, to see possible relationships between quite diverse events/phenomena, to discern patterns in apparently chaotic data. I cannot see anything out of the ordinary in what you have presented. I have looked at your data with a wide open mind. For me this is not an either-or situation - hmm, there might be something intersting there. This is a non-event, a no-show; Elvis hasn't left the building, he was never there in the first place.

Point 2: I wish you were making sense.
Point 3: I think most objects on the moon are interesting, because they are on the moon.
Point 4: Pointing out that there is nothing there is not debunking as I understand it, unless you wish to re-define debunking.

The metallic side too the brilliantly lit object represents an artificial quality to it.

The above requires a person willing to see it. You are not willing to see it, so this board is useless.

I am trying to email a NASA person about the image - Amazingly I trust them more than people on here.

...so this board is useless.


Does that mean you'll be leaving now??

The metallic side too the brilliantly lit object represents an artificial quality to it.

The above requires a person willing to see it. You are not willing to see it, so this board is useless.

I am trying to email a NASA person about the image - Amazingly I trust them more than people on here.
You seem unable or unwilling to respond directly to any questions or points raised by myself and others in relation to your anomalies. This seems to me somewhat rude on your part, and so the first part of this post is reciprocal rudeness on my part. It has no redeeming social value, nothing of an educational character. (Well, perhaps a little bit on English usage.) It is pure self-indulgence, so you are free to ignore it, much as you have ignored all the facts relating to your anomalies.
"The metallic side too the brilliantly lit object represents an artificial quality to it." Your grasp of English grammar and spelling is as weak as your grasp of facts and scientific principal. If you have something important to say - and clearly you think these anomalies may be important - it behoves you to express your thoughts clearly and with minimal ambiguity.
Your first sentence in the above post is, I believe, meant to read "The metallic side of the brilliantly lit object has an artificial quality to it." There. Was that so difficult?

"The above requires a person willing to see it." I guess my natural intelligence, coupled with scientific training, just inhibits my willingness.

"You are not willing to see it, so this board is useless."
Wow! I had no idea I had so much influence. My inability to trick my brain into seeing something that isn't there has rendered the entire board useless. A perfect demonstration of your flawed logic, or at best your misapplication of irony.


"I am trying to email a NASA person about the image - Amazingly I trust them more than people on here."
At last something we can agree on. My only question is, why would you have ever thought otherwise. Lets look at the facts.
NASA person:
Professionally trained
Expertise in specific area of interest
Identified by name
Qualifications and experience a matter of public record
Accountable for responses given to members of the public
SFN poster:
Training diverse and often of mediocre quality
Unlikely to be expert in specific area
Wholly anonymous
Claims of expertise and experience not verifiable
Free to say anything regardless

Naturally you should trust a NASA person more than this forum. The other great advantage of the NASA person, from your perspective, is that they will laugh behind your back rather than in your face.

The one above features what can only be called a cut out area with bridges going across it.
...
Looks like a damn spotlight.. I've tried to think of everything else it could be or how something else is fooling me, but it looks so damn obvious...
...


...I've never said these are alien structures. Haha.. figures. Embarrassed?



You see bridges and spotlight which obviously werent built there by humans, yet you are amazed why folks interpret that as talking about alien stuff? :rolleyes:


I was asking what are they? If I get a bunch of, "looks like rocks" that does not tell anyone a damn thing.


"Looks like rocks" is somehow more futile explanation than looks like an "anomaly" (see woo-woo credo for definition of anomaly anomaly #14 (http://watchingyou.com/woowoo.html))


Gort, NASA has to release these images. They are our images. However, I do believe they can censor some images due to matters of national security.

But for some reason they FORGOT to censor these particular images?



The mere fact that you so quickly assumed I was claiming anything speaks volumes about the jadded, arrogant nature of most of the debunker's on here.


Your method "I didnt claim anything" while stating observations and simultaniously denying any natural cause for it, is well known...



The metallic side too the brilliantly lit object represents an artificial quality to it.

The above requires a person willing to see it. You are not willing to see it, so this board is useless.

Metallic is unnatural?

I'm willing to see a lot of things, does that mean everything i imagine or see is real? Can you name anything that by this definition CAN NOT be real?

Lek, I'm allready done here.

Nothing will be concluded in you're mind, that's not allready been concluded. Same with every other debunker on here.

I'm allready past trying to prove anything to you, or anyone else on here.

Have a nice day! :)

Unfortunetly these chronic skeptics seem to love debunking (or thinking they are anyway) structures on planets, their answer will be "ROCK" what ever you post.

I remember once someone used to post some ufo information, the skeptics could not 'debunk" it so they banned him :rolleyes:

Keep it up though Btimsah, there are some people on here who have a open mind.

I remember once someone used to post some ufo information, the skeptics could not 'debunk" it so they banned him

Really? I don't recall ever seeing incontrovertible proof of UFOs ever posted here, so please, name names, who was the maker of this revelation? What was the information?

Oh i think you know....

btimsah,

As one who has a tendancy to lean towards conspiracy theories and the sort, I lent an open--and eager--mind to your claims and photos. While I see no reason to believe that Mars was not inhabited long ago, and that alien beings in alien crafts have at least sped by our planet on thier way to some galactic event, I see nothing in your moon pictures that is even slightly anomolous. Not one thing.

All I see is a frustrated, young man (or woman) who is limited by thier lack of experience in the field, yet pushed ever harder into believing by an active imagination and a true interest in the concept of rocks and structures--natural or man-made--on worlds beyond our own.

What you should do, son, is listen to the people on this board. Have an open mind to an opinion other than your own. Just because you think you see bridges doesn't mean there really are bridges. At least three of the people who have responded to you are at the least very intelligent, and one seems to have more than a basic education in the field of geology. They are giving more than opinion, they are giving insight. One even managed to give some real, serious answers to your outlandish claims.

You are the close-minded one. You are taking the mundane-but-true answer of "It's just rocks" and dismissing it soley on the basis that it doesn't excite you. Well, sorry, but in comparison to an alien (or Human) structure, rocks aren't that exciting.

If you really care, and really want to find something amazing, go to school for this stuff. Nobody in the world has a better job than the guy leading the team at NASA who landed the latest Mars rover.

JD

Oh i think you know....

Right, so instead of answering my question, you just get cryptic.

Do you have an answer?

:rolleyes:

Crazymikey

:rolleyes:

Crazymikey

LOL. Probably the three posters with the best info on the UFO phenomenon
have been Zion, Ivan Seeking and Ives. Ivan Seeking and Ives no longer
participate on these forums, but here's a link to an earlier thread by Ivan
Seeking: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=28335

Keep it up though Btimsah, there are some people on here who have a open mind.
http://www.mp3.com.au/img/track/AAAnus%20of%20SATAN_Empty%20Head_RESIZED.jpg

:rolleyes:

Crazymikey

CrazyMikey? He wasn't convincing at all!

You have to do better than that!

:rolleyes:

Crazymikey

Crazymikey was quite readily debunked and deconstructed.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=546629&highlight=deconstructing#post546629

He ceratainly wasn't banned because we "couldn't debunk" his UFO nonsense. In fact, I was on record for not wanting him banned and defended him and his right to post the "crazy" stuff he did. He was banned because of his continued disregard for the rules of the forum.

JDawg, your post of 10:02am (GMT) today ------ Perfect. Flawless. I hope btimsah listens to your advice. Thanks.

Thanks, Ophiolite.

At first, I was pissed at the kid, too. But as I read his posts, he reminded me more and more of myself a few years back. I used to be the one fighting people who knew more than I did about one thing or another. It's not that the kid's an asshole, it's just that he really doesn't know any better.

He's more than interested enough to actually follow through and get an education in the field, and I bet he'd be just as good as anyone else. And just imagine how sweet it would be for him to return to these forums years from know and discuss legitimate topics. He would love it! And so would I, quite honestly!

JD

<a href=http://www.infidelguy.com/?ref=ellimist>"To be truly open-minded is to admit that you may be wrong." - R. Finley, Sr.</a>

That works both ways too Ellimist.

You mean "To be truly wrong is not to mind that you wont admit openess." ?

btimsah,

As one who has a tendancy to lean towards conspiracy theories and the sort, I lent an open--and eager--mind to your claims and photos. While I see no reason to believe that Mars was not inhabited long ago, and that alien beings in alien crafts have at least sped by our planet on thier way to some galactic event, I see nothing in your moon pictures that is even slightly anomolous. Not one thing.

All I see is a frustrated, young man (or woman) who is limited by thier lack of experience in the field, yet pushed ever harder into believing by an active imagination and a true interest in the concept of rocks and structures--natural or man-made--on worlds beyond our own.

What you should do, son, is listen to the people on this board. Have an open mind to an opinion other than your own. Just because you think you see bridges doesn't mean there really are bridges. At least three of the people who have responded to you are at the least very intelligent, and one seems to have more than a basic education in the field of geology. They are giving more than opinion, they are giving insight. One even managed to give some real, serious answers to your outlandish claims.

You are the close-minded one. You are taking the mundane-but-true answer of "It's just rocks" and dismissing it soley on the basis that it doesn't excite you. Well, sorry, but in comparison to an alien (or Human) structure, rocks aren't that exciting.

If you really care, and really want to find something amazing, go to school for this stuff. Nobody in the world has a better job than the guy leading the team at NASA who landed the latest Mars rover.

JD

JDawg, Every debunker on here is a waste of time. The mere fact that debunker's TROLL the PSEUDOSCIENCE area then COMPLAIN about PSEUDOSCIENCE is the ULTIMATE OF INSANITY. Their actually looking for thing's to debunk and call rocks, and then get someone like me to jump through their stupid hoops.

I know what game you guy's play - and I won't be playing it.

Oh i think you know....

Thank's Star, you're correct about this board. I've allready made the correct judgment and am moving my work to a more "open" area.

I'm still not sure why Debunking skeptics are in the pseudoscience area... :D

"Do me next!" (Stewie Griffin, The Family Guy, #2ACX17 (http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/GuidePageServlet/showid-348/epid-55495))

So, you're off to spout your inanity somewhere else, because you are too lazy or incapable of answering the questions put to you?

I'll give you another chance to asnwer, and ask the question again.

"What are you looking at".

Explain what that image is, please, and pay close attention to the scale of said image. Then examine your explanation, and get back to me.

And why do debunkers come to pseudoscience? Simple, to try and save people from ill informed cranks who peddle lies.

Thanks, Ophiolite.

At first, I was pissed at the kid, too. But as I read his posts, he reminded me more and more of myself a few years back. I used to be the one fighting people who knew more than I did about one thing or another. It's not that the kid's an asshole, it's just that he really doesn't know any better.

He's more than interested enough to actually follow through and get an education in the field, and I bet he'd be just as good as anyone else. And just imagine how sweet it would be for him to return to these forums years from know and discuss legitimate topics. He would love it! And so would I, quite honestly!

JD

JDawg, I have no desire to be a close-minded debunking pseudoskeptic. You can have that world - and everything you try to debunk from it.

The reason I get angry is because of just this kind of arrogance you are showing. It's typical of amateur scientist's online, and not any different here.

btimsah... I asked a truly simple, non-debunking-style question that you chose
to ignore or overlooked: Without knowing the scale of your photographs, how can
you (or anyone) make a claim as to an objects identity?

:m: Peace.

So, you're off to spout your inanity somewhere else, because you are too lazy or incapable of answering the questions put to you?

I'll give you another chance to asnwer, and ask the question again.

"What are you looking at".

Explain what that image is, please, and pay close attention to the scale of said image. Then examine your explanation, and get back to me.

And why do debunkers come to pseudoscience? Simple, to try and save people from ill informed cranks who peddle lies.

So you do troll pseudoscience to attack people..

JDawg, I have no desire to be a close-minded debunking pseudoskeptic. You can have that world - and everything you try to debunk from it.

Dude, I'm not debunking anything. I'm just curious what about the picture you thought was of any interest. The only explanation you gave contradicted things you had said earlier, such as:

As for anything of substance. The object you claim is a rock, is too linear to be a rock. Far too large and appears to be almost* perfectly oval in shape.

But THEN you said:

I have no idea how large these area's are. I am not an imaging expert,

Your argument was that the object was far too large, yet you have no clue what the dimensions of the picture are. How can you tell that the object is "far too large" if the thing, as far you know, could be the size of a nickel?

So all you are saying with any degree of certainty is that the object is ALMOST perfectly oval and linear. Rocks can be both, is all anybody tried to say. That isn't debunking. That's just speaking truth. So what I ask is: What is your problem with me?

I'm open minded. I am not convinced that the Mars face isn't artificial. I'm just not, and I guess there isn't anything that will convince me otherwise. I don't think Oswald shot Kennedy, and I believe intelligent aliens exist. What I can't agree with you on is that those pictures show anything more than moon rocks. I see nothing there of interest, and I see your argument has absolutely no basis other than your overactive imagination. You have a problem with that? Too bad, come back without something that is at least INTERESTING.

I'm done being nice or understanding to your plight, because now I see that you just refuse to see things from any perspective other than the skewed one you unfortunately have to call your own. I'm guessing (or hoping) that you're less than 18 years old with absoutely no background in geology, and you still believe in the Easter Bunny.

JD

The brightly lit object anomaly appears on Lunar Orbiter image:
LO5-70-H2C and can be found at: http://cps.earth.northwestern.edu/LO/ [

That image was taken from an altitude of 113.1 km above the lunar surface, and shows a corrected resolution of 1.7 m. The "spotlight" object is rather quite large. Huge. Massive. Were it a spotlight, we would know when there's a sale on last year's close-outs at Lunar Outfitters.

(Note: At present I'm looking for an image of a Martian anomaly that is not the classic "face", but another face-looking object. It may be thoroughly debunked already, as I'm having trouble finding it; however, when I find it, I will be able to say that you have a greater chance of convincing me there's something unnatural about that particular formation than anything I've seen in this topic.)

Oh, tiassa, you're doing the kid's work for him, telling him the resolution. He's been dodging answering that one for too long.

Starman, no, I don't 'troll' to attack people. I debate here and debunk the crap people spout. But if you start being dishonest, like making claims about an image you know very little about, not least it's scale, well, then yes, I might get a bit testy and call you names, but you're assuming we're gullible simpletons by making such unsubstatiated claims, and and that it pretty insulting too.

JDawg


I'm open minded. I am not convinced that the Mars face isn't artificial. I'm just not, and I guess there isn't anything that will convince me otherwise.

I was wondering if we could digress long enough that I might ask you for a couple of words on why that is. To be honest, I haven't been following that one since the new images came in. I have this operating theory about "pseudoscience" and "conspiracy theories", that issues with credibility will eventually reach me through my particular subculture. Much like when a rumor about the war in Iraq reaches the BBC Online, I know there's at least something to it.

But the newer images were enough for me to not immerse myself in the response, so if there's news it probably passed me by. (I'm pretty sure they haven't proven it's a face; I definitely would have heard that.)

At any rate, it was coincidental that you mentioned the face at Cydonia because I had been looking at one of the newer images while you were typing that response. (I was actually searching for this oddity (http://www.joshuaalmond.com/mars/statue.jpg), at Utopia Planitia.)

Sorry for the digression, but is it a gut instinct of yours, or just something I've missed in the meantime?

Oh, tiassa, you're doing the kid's work for him, telling him the resolution. He's been dodging answering that one for too long.

Starman, no, I don't 'troll' to attack people. I debate here and debunk the crap people spout. But if you start being dishonest, like making claims about an image you know very little about, not least it's scale, well, then yes, I might get a bit testy and call you names, but you're assuming we're gullible simpletons by making such unsubstatiated claims, and and that it pretty insulting too.

Phlogistician, I've not intended to be dishonest. You tried this tack with Crazy Mikey as well. You find one thing such as a typographical error or misunderstanding and then get on you're high horse and claim someone is trying to be dishonest. :bugeye:

Let me make it simple, I don't know the size of the object. I was ASSuming it was very large in relation to the other objects.

If I had to guess about 30 Killometers? It was not the size of the object, but the metallic appearance of it anyways.

But, does it really matter?

Absolutely.

Oh, tiassa, you're doing the kid's work for him, telling him the resolution. He's been dodging answering that one for too long.

My apologies. In the meantime, I've been itching to take a swing at the image you posted; I'm pretty sure I know what it is.

I guess you have a fair criticism; people undermine me accidentally when I'm trying to string out certain points in order to get somebody to go through a process. In my defense, let me simply say that I think our friend is being simply obstinate. I got that information from a link he offered, and even though it was the wrong page he linked to, the data's right there next to the filename he offered: lo5-70-h2a.tif (http://cps.earth.northwestern.edu/LO/lo5-hires.data.html) (link is to thumbnails and data).

He's using you to feed his own psyche. He's not in this to convince anybody of anything, but to feel oppressed and cast out. That's simply not a healthy thing for him to be doing, and it seems to annoy others as well.

Perhaps I should have noticed the conceptual symbiosis, or maybe that's presumptuous.

Even though I'm not British (at all) enough, I will still dare quote, "This is a low, but it won't hurt you. When you're alone, it will be there with you, finding ways to stay solo."

And that's what he's about, I think.

(And I do declare that's a genius lyric.)

btsimah,
you characterised the debunkers as amateur scientists. There was a hint of derision in your use of the phrase. Amateur science has a long and proud pedigree. What matters more than the status of the scientist - amateur or professional - is the approach used. i.e. is the science professional or amateurish, is it subject to proper application of the scientific method without emotion.

In your second post you say:
"If you consider yourself a debunker and are close minded, then don't bother wasting anyones time. If you are a skeptic and take offense to me thinking you might be close minded - then tell me one anomalous image you have seen that actually did look anomalous to you, and still does.
A debunking skeptic literally think there are no anomalous images. What do you think? "
So at the outset you are saying - "If you don't agree with me you are a debunker and a waste of time."
That is not scientific, that is not the way to encourage rational discussion, that is not even very polite. And you have done it repeatedly. "If you don't agree with me you are a debunker and a waste of time."

You have persistently failed to answer several questions about the anomalies you feel you have identified.

After re-reading practically this entire thread two thoughts emerged. After looking at the photos I finally managed to see the 'bridges' and the 'spotlight'. Actually quite good. They induced a "Oh, yes." response in me. Just like when I see Margaret Thatcher in a potato or a racing horse in a cloud. Humans are good at creating patterns in their minds. Humans are good at creating patterns in their minds. Humans are good at creating patterns in their minds. Humans are good at creating patterns in their minds. Humans are good at creating patterns in their minds. ..in their minds. ..in their minds. ..in their minds. ..in their minds.

You have a choice facing you btsimah. You can take your enthusiasm and passion and invest it in some of the real problems facing science. Adopt a scientific rigour, obtain scientific training and you will be embraced by the scientific community.
Or, you can retreat to your comfortable fantasy world where random patterns become anomalous, and you can despise any and all who disagree with you, 'nursing your wrath to keep it warm'.

I know which choice I would like you to make. I suspect it will be the wrong one. If it is the first, then a warm welcome. If it is the second, fuck off: I've invested quite enough time in your small-minded delusions.

My apologies. In the meantime, I've been itching to take a swing at the image you posted; I'm pretty sure I know what it is.

I guess you have a fair criticism; people undermine me accidentally when I'm trying to string out certain points in order to get somebody to go through a process. In my defense, let me simply say that I think our friend is being simply obstinate. I got that information from a link he offered, and even though it was the wrong page he linked to, the data's right there next to the filename he offered: lo5-70-h2a.tif (http://cps.earth.northwestern.edu/LO/lo5-hires.data.html) (link is to thumbnails and data).

He's using you to feed his own psyche. He's not in this to convince anybody of anything, but to feel oppressed and cast out. That's simply not a healthy thing for him to be doing, and it seems to annoy others as well.

Perhaps I should have noticed the conceptual symbiosis, or maybe that's presumptuous.

Even though I'm not British (at all) enough, I will still dare quote, "This is a low, but it won't hurt you. When you're alone, it will be there with you, finding ways to stay solo."

And that's what he's about, I think.

(And I do declare that's a genius lyric.)

What a load of crap. The assumption's made about me above, assume I knew this board would react as they did. That assumption is false because I had never posted here before, therefore could not have been trying this bullshit:

"He's using you to feed his own psyche. He's not in this to convince anybody of anything, but to feel oppressed and cast out. That's simply not a healthy thing for him to be doing, and it seems to annoy others as well".

Nice try though.

"If you consider yourself a debunker and are close minded, then don't bother wasting anyones time. If you are a skeptic and take offense to me thinking you might be close minded - then tell me one anomalous image you have seen that actually did look anomalous to you, and still does.
A debunking skeptic literally think there are no anomalous images. What do you think? " So at the outset you are saying - "If you don't agree with me you are a debunker and a waste of time."
That is not scientific, that is not the way to encourage rational discussion, that is not even very polite. And you have done it repeatedly. "If you don't agree with me you are a debunker and a waste of time."

Yes - I am saying you appear to be a fanatical debunker therefore you're a waste of both of our time.

You have persistently failed to answer several questions about the anomalies you feel you have identified.

You also failed to name one anomaly you actually thought was unexplainable. So, I mean, you have PERSISTENTLY failed to do that! :D

After re-reading practically this entire thread two thoughts emerged. After looking at the photos I finally managed to see the 'bridges' and the 'spotlight'. Actually quite good. They induced a "Oh, yes." response in me. Just like when I see Margaret Thatcher in a potato or a racing horse in a cloud. Humans are good at creating patterns in their minds. Humans are good at creating patterns in their minds. Humans are good at creating patterns in their minds. Humans are good at creating patterns in their minds. Humans are good at creating patterns in their minds. ..in their minds. ..in their minds. ..in their minds. ..in their minds.

I am glad you saw the bridges, quite amazing. I am not sure if you think their "illusions" or what. You can identify the shadow's and the depression involved, so the bridge-like features are there. If you can offer a natural process that would explain for it - I am more than ready to hear it.

You have a choice facing you btsimah. You can take your enthusiasm and passion and invest it in some of the real problems facing science. Adopt a scientific rigour, obtain scientific training and you will be embraced by the scientific community.
Or, you can retreat to your comfortable fantasy world where random patterns become anomalous, and you can despise any and all who disagree with you, 'nursing your wrath to keep it warm'.

This is a real problem facing science. The question of weather or not we are alone. The question of weather or not it may have allready been answered. The question of weather or not it's been right in front of us. A good example is when someone did a FOIA request for NASA to release any information regarding images or analysis done on the Cydonia region. They responded by saying "no such images or analysis existed." They admitted they had never analyzed the face on Mars. I want to know - does NASA look for Alien structures on celestial bodies? Do they take it seriously? If not, why not? If so, how come? My way of looking at it says this. We don't know if Aliens exist, so we can't rule out the possibility that we may photograph a structure or vehicle of their's. Is that really that bad?

I know which choice I would like you to make. I suspect it will be the wrong one. If it is the first, then a warm welcome. If it is the second, fuck off: I've invested quite enough time in your small-minded delusions.

You never stated what my choices were? What are you talking about? Well, I'm just glad you finally saw the bridges. They are a bit faint arent they? :)

Yes - I am saying you appear to be a fanatical debunker therefore you're a waste of both of our time.

Do you accept that the criteria by which you arrive at this conclusion are unscientific?You also failed to name one anomaly you actually thought was unexplainable. So, I mean, you have PERSISTENTLY failed to do that!
That's because I do not see any that are inexplicable. That is what I and several other posters have been saying with varying degrees of politeness since this thread started. In my last post, having at last seen what you had been talking about I gave you an explanation. The pattern forming abilities of the human brain. Are you denying that as a possibility?
I am glad you saw the bridges, quite amazing. I am not sure if you think their "illusions" or what. .... If you can offer a natural process that would explain for it - I am more than ready to hear it.
I know you can read, but can you comprehend? I gave you the answer. I repeated it multiple times in my last post. Here it is again.Humans are good at creating patterns in their minds.
This is a real problem facing science. The question of weather or not we are alone
This is an important problem facing science. Agreed. I would not necessarily class it as the most important. I could certainly muster a host of arguments to support the statement, but I could argue quite persuasively for the opposite. Lets agree that it is important.
In that case why don't you do something that may seriously adavance our understanding in this area. There was nothing at all bad in bringing forward some examples that mighthave been alien structures (though for a while you seemed to backpeddle on what you were actually claiming). But when these were recognised for what they were by several other posters, it was time to move on to new grounds. Stop trying to whip life into, not a dead donkey, but a rock shaped vaguely like a donkey, when the light strikes it from a certain angle.

You ask what were your two options. I state them again:
1. Start to think like a scientist, post like a scientist, acquire scientific training, and be welconed at the very least as an educated scientific layman. That is the route I hope you would choose.
2. The alternative is to ignore all the comments from some reasonably knowledgeable people and retreatinto a fantasy world where the bridges and the spotlights are real.
Your choice. You are not stupid, so choice 2 would be a real waste.

The assumption's made about me above, assume I knew this board would react as they did. That assumption is false because I had never posted here before, therefore could not have been trying this bullshit

Well, you could try being helpful to your own discussion. You posted a couple of pictures, made a couple of characterizations, and invited people to debunk it. You have treated the images as if what you see is self-evident and beyond question. What you have done is equivalent to asserting that God exists and then telling everybody to prove you wrong. Unlike God, though, there are possible answers to this question. They will be reached through the "scientific method"; perhaps you've heard of it. The scientific method works a lot better than mere style.

Show me one place in this topic where you've involved the scientific method in your assertion. You cannot, because you're using the "X-Files Method": jump to an insupportable thesis and call everyone who doesn't think it self-evident closed-minded.

That you have ignored my patient attempts to discuss the topic with you in order to carry on making a complete fool of yourself is your own business, but if you're going to be self-righteous, at least have a reason.

Maybe if you'd extended even two words to people that didn't show you as paranoid and undereducated, people wold not be so irritated with your attitude.

Some of the folks at Sciforums are used to your routine; we've seen it here from many posters on many occasions. That you have been hostile from the word, "Go" in this topic, and unwilling to communicate anything of scientific worth does say something on your behalf, especially when we consider what you have communicated instead.

That you sound like other former posters for whom scientific considerations were apparently offensive may just be coincidental. Maybe you're not Fluid or Mike, but you are a walking stereotype. Show me a picture of your face, I'll assert it's your ass, and anything you say otherwise only means you're an arrogant, cynical debunker without a point to make. Would that really be a fair argument?

Trust me, you don't have to believe every insupportable thesis you encounter in order for the Universe to be a fascinating, enlightening, and entertaining place.

You have a grater chance of convincing me that there's something anomalous about this site, on Mars--

http://www.joshuaalmond.com/mars/statue.jpg

--than you do convincing me there's something in those lunar photos. Of course, I don't even know how large those objects even are. The problem with saying something like this is what it looks like is that I saw Albert Einstein in the texture on the walls in my home when I was about 11, and Mark Twain in the plaster covering a hole in the wall of a men's room. Sometimes it's just texture on the walls. Sometimes it's just plaster and paint. Sometimes it's just a rock.

I'll be ecstatic when we find life in the Universe; I do expect to live that long. To me, it's inevitable that we do find it. But it ain't there in the images you've offered.

Additionally, your response presumes that it matters whether or not you've posted here or not. There are Christian advocates that do it at Sciforums, too, and atheists who hound Christian boards. You can predict a certain response if you present bunk theories. All you have to know in advance is that there's a skeptic in the room. There's an entire industry called "self-help publications" that makes its money trying to deal with behavior like yours. Personally, I'm not a fan of most of the solutions offered by that industry, but I do know you're a walking example taken out of any number of those books.

You have spurned the scientific method, characterized your objectors before they responded, save one, and generally conducted yourself in an insulting manner typical of an ignoramus.

This was never about the images, btimsah. If it was you would have found more credible anomalies to pull out. This is all about attitude. And I promise, if you change that, people won't be put off by a more positive, scientific, and open-minded attitude than you've shown.

Do you accept that the criteria by which you arrive at this conclusion are unscientific?
That's because I do not see any that are inexplicable. That is what I and several other posters have been saying with varying degrees of politeness since this thread started. In my last post, having at last seen what you had been talking about I gave you an explanation. The pattern forming abilities of the human brain. Are you denying that as a possibility?

I know you can read, but can you comprehend? I gave you the answer. I repeated it multiple times in my last post. Here it is again.Humans are good at creating patterns in their minds.

This is an important problem facing science. Agreed. I would not necessarily class it as the most important. I could certainly muster a host of arguments to support the statement, but I could argue quite persuasively for the opposite. Lets agree that it is important.
In that case why don't you do something that may seriously adavance our understanding in this area. There was nothing at all bad in bringing forward some examples that mighthave been alien structures (though for a while you seemed to backpeddle on what you were actually claiming). But when these were recognised for what they were by several other posters, it was time to move on to new grounds. Stop trying to whip life into, not a dead donkey, but a rock shaped vaguely like a donkey, when the light strikes it from a certain angle.

You ask what were your two options. I state them again:
1. Start to think like a scientist, post like a scientist, acquire scientific training, and be welconed at the very least as an educated scientific layman. That is the route I hope you would choose.
2. The alternative is to ignore all the comments from some reasonably knowledgeable people and retreatinto a fantasy world where the bridges and the spotlights are real.
Your choice. You are not stupid, so choice 2 would be a real waste.

Bridges or structural features on a surface are not the same as faces seen in a tortilla, and have little to do with this subject at hand. What you're doing is comparing Apples to Oranges in a lame attempt to win debunkery points and then calling it science. :rolleyes:

Well, you could try being helpful to your own discussion. You posted a couple of pictures, made a couple of characterizations, and invited people to debunk it. You have treated the images as if what you see is self-evident and beyond question. What you have done is equivalent to asserting that God exists and then telling everybody to prove you wrong. Unlike God, though, there are possible answers to this question. They will be reached through the "scientific method"; perhaps you've heard of it. The scientific method works a lot better than mere style.

Show me one place in this topic where you've involved the scientific method in your assertion. You cannot, because you're using the "X-Files Method": jump to an insupportable thesis and call everyone who doesn't think it self-evident closed-minded.

That you have ignored my patient attempts to discuss the topic with you in order to carry on making a complete fool of yourself is your own business, but if you're going to be self-righteous, at least have a reason.

Maybe if you'd extended even two words to people that didn't show you as paranoid and undereducated, people wold not be so irritated with your attitude.

Some of the folks at Sciforums are used to your routine; we've seen it here from many posters on many occasions. That you have been hostile from the word, "Go" in this topic, and unwilling to communicate anything of scientific worth does say something on your behalf, especially when we consider what you have communicated instead.

That you sound like other former posters for whom scientific considerations were apparently offensive may just be coincidental. Maybe you're not Fluid or Mike, but you are a walking stereotype. Show me a picture of your face, I'll assert it's your ass, and anything you say otherwise only means you're an arrogant, cynical debunker without a point to make. Would that really be a fair argument?

Trust me, you don't have to believe every insupportable thesis you encounter in order for the Universe to be a fascinating, enlightening, and entertaining place.

You have a grater chance of convincing me that there's something anomalous about this site, on Mars--

http://www.joshuaalmond.com/mars/statue.jpg

--than you do convincing me there's something in those lunar photos. Of course, I don't even know how large those objects even are. The problem with saying something like this is what it looks like is that I saw Albert Einstein in the texture on the walls in my home when I was about 11, and Mark Twain in the plaster covering a hole in the wall of a men's room. Sometimes it's just texture on the walls. Sometimes it's just plaster and paint. Sometimes it's just a rock.

I'll be ecstatic when we find life in the Universe; I do expect to live that long. To me, it's inevitable that we do find it. But it ain't there in the images you've offered.

Additionally, your response presumes that it matters whether or not you've posted here or not. There are Christian advocates that do it at Sciforums, too, and atheists who hound Christian boards. You can predict a certain response if you present bunk theories. All you have to know in advance is that there's a skeptic in the room. There's an entire industry called "self-help publications" that makes its money trying to deal with behavior like yours. Personally, I'm not a fan of most of the solutions offered by that industry, but I do know you're a walking example taken out of any number of those books.

You have spurned the scientific method, characterized your objectors before they responded, save one, and generally conducted yourself in an insulting manner typical of an ignoramus.

This was never about the images, btimsah. If it was you would have found more credible anomalies to pull out. This is all about attitude. And I promise, if you change that, people won't be put off by a more positive, scientific, and open-minded attitude than you've shown.

Tiassa, again you're wrong. :rolleyes: How many times must I say - I am not claiming the object is anything. So there goes another heap of you're bullshit you wrote above. I am merely saying that it looks like, and has the characteristics of something artificial.

As for you're Mars image - It's nothing but interesting rock formations. Why you find that fuzzy, highly contrasted image of more interest beats me. Why you think the image you have is not an optical illusion, but the one I found IS, beats me. Where did you get you're image? What image is it from?

i have reasons to think the first image is not a lightsource.
Observe the structures in front of the "spotlight". They do not cast shadows in the direction opposite from the "spotlight". Rather, they have shadows toward the "spotlight".
Also, all the structures have their lower left faces lighted. This indicates they are lighted from a common light source.
Therefore the photo is one of overexposure of lighted surfaces. That's all.

I pulled the image from a Martian anomaly site approximately as coherent as you. See Faces on Mars (http://www.joshuaalmond.com/maarsface.html).


How many times must I say - I am not claiming the object is anything.

Let's review your comments:
• Looks like a damn spotlight.. I've tried to think of everything else it could be or how something else is fooling me, but it looks so damn obvious... lol. Anyone wanna try to debunk it? Surely NASA saw it. (Topic Post #728697)

• In the second image, I see a brilliantly lit light or object that is a perfect sphere. (#728742)

• The object you claim is a rock, is too linear to be a rock. Far to large and appears to be almost* perfectly oval in shape. (#730248)

• I am not making an extraorinary claim, you wish I was. I am saying those objects LOOK LIKE they MIGHT be something of interest. (#730255)

• I am not making an extraorinary claim, you wish I was. I am saying those objects LOOK LIKE they MIGHT be something of interest ... The above requires a person willing to see it. You are not willing to see it, so this board is useless. (#730647)

• It was not the size of the object, but the metallic appearance of it anyways. (#733291)

• How many times must I say - I am not claiming the object is anything. (#733470)

First off, I'm not even going to pick out the already-noted absurdity of your conflicting claims that an object is too large to be something and that you don't know the scale.

Secondly, you wrote, "I've tried to think of everything else it could be or how something else is fooling me, but it looks so damn obvious".

Thus I reiterate:
You have treated the images as if what you see is self-evident and beyond question.
So let's take a look at some logic:
(1) If the object is artificial
(2) And extraterrestrials did not construct it
(3) Who did?
Rather than offering an answer to #3, you have simply lashed out at people.

You claimed the object in the image looks artificial. You claimed you've tried to think of everything else it could be and noted that it "looks so damn obvious".

That something "looks so damn obvious" is not a particularly solid assertion; it's not obvious to me or, nor most others.

In the meantime, you invited debunkers ("Anyone wanna try to debunk it?"), and continually retreat--
• If you can't prove it's nothing but a rock, then you're response is the junk. (#728761)

• And don't come back with crap that you are open minded, UNLESS you can name 1 SINGLE ANOMALY IN SPACE that you think is unexplainable. (#728767)

• In the end it is you're debunking skeptical mindset which will not allow you to EVER consider that anomalies do exist within the lunar orbiter series exist and even further. (#728997)
--claiming that you didn't say this or that:
• The embarrassment here is you're stupidity, or inability to read a thread. I've never said these are alien structures. ( #730151)

• I have NEVER written that they are alien structures. You assumed that, and still do. (#730248)

• How many times must I say - I am not claiming the object is anything. (#733470)
What would help is if you would actually say something, instead of leaving something that's not particularly obvious to assert itself as self-evident.

For instance, as I noted, if the object is artificial and not of extraterrestrial construction, who built it? You are upset that people presume you mean aliens built it, but there is no legitimate inkling of the notion that humans built it. So who? God?

You are presumptuous and rely on information you're withholding in order to stand the line. Artificial? Metallic? Whence comes the artificial structure, then? You refuse to address this issue, despite the fact that it would be beneficial to your position to do so. That way, some of the skeptics who are skeptical because, while they hope for life in the Universe, they just don't see what you seem to think is self evident, can move forward and assess the next part. In the meantime, you're acting as if you're upset that people don't find an unsupportable assertion to be self-evidently true.

Your presumption of what is open-minded is very closed.


Why you find that fuzzy, highly contrasted image of more interest beats me. Why you think the image you have is not an optical illusion, but the one I found IS, beats me.

A little presumptuous, eh? I'm of the belief that I'm looking at shadows on rocks, but there's a face in there, a cutaway in the rock that I could speculate is unnatural, and even some features that some have described as an unknown form of hieroglyphs. I wish I still had the .jpg of a pencil-sketch someone did speculating what was there; coincidentally, I threw out a whole directory of old images the other day for space on my hard drive. I hadn't looked at them in a couple years. Unfortunately, the fanciful speculation of what that object on Mars is went with them.

I'm quite sure the Martian image I posted is not anything of genuine importance, but the difference between that picture and your "bridges" image is that I recognized the optical illusion in yours as the specific illusion I posited with the "Ambiguous Cubes" link. Without more information, it is presumptuous to say we're looking at any form of trench or depression.

As a final note, I noticed that you did not take the time to disagree about my assessment of your regard for the scientific method, nor your insulting conduct. Perhaps if you wish your theories to be taken credibly, you might try correcting those aspects of your presentation.

It seems to me you came in here looking for a fight. And you got one from a good number of people.

Consider your assessment of the Martian image I posted, and then consider mine: Yes, you have a greater chance of convincing me that's a face and such on Mars than you do convincing me there's a metal spotlight or any other artificial structure of such magnitude in the image you presented. Your claim is weaker than the claims about the Martian image; at least in that one I can see the face people refer to, even if I don't believe it's real.

btsimah
Tiassa has eloquently expressed thoughts that parallel my own. Since you seem to have trouble comprehending English let me explain that I believe the underlying tenor is one of contempt. Frankly that is being generous, since I don't think you are worthy of even that much.

You continue to ignore every question put to you, while we reply to each of yours, often repeatedly.

So, basically you have presented us with a pretty solid vision of your character. Key features: rude, ignorant, uneducated, lonely, illogical, short attention span, infantile, liar, socially dysfunctional. This is not, my opinion btsimah, this is what you have told us about yourself through the character of your posts.

If you measure your success by the number of posters who 'retire' from the discussion, you may chalk up another victory. If you gain pleasure from the sadness you bring to others for witnessing one such as you, then rejoice. If you came here to be an ijit, mission accomplished.

Tiassa,

You are correct: The newest photographs of the Martian "Face" make it crystal clear that the anomaly is nothing more than a pile of rocks and dirt.

But in the pictures from Viking in 1988, however, the mound of rocks and dirt strongly resemble an artificial carving or structure similar in some ways to our own sphinx. (Yes, I saw the drawings and such of people trying to make more of it than it was--teeth, headdress and the such--but I never bought into that nonsense) I believed that what we were looking at was an exciting possibility:

Mars was once inhabited by something that could leave a recognizable mark.

Now, after seeing the new pictures, I was terribly dissapointed, and I must admit, I did not really want to believe the pictures were real. I was sure the photo I saw was disinformation and just meant to shut us up. A part of me still wants to believe that, but I have no grounds in making that claim other than that I really want to believe something is there.

As long as we digress this much, Tiassa, let me pose a scenario:

The first picture was in 1977, or 76. Could the face, in that time, have been covered by violent dust storms that are said to hammer the Martian land? Maybe partially eroded? A combination of the two? I really don't have any education in the subject, so I can't say (though it does sound far-fetched) but I would really love to hear your opinion.

Hey O, chime in if ya'd like.

JD

Eroded? And it wasn't eroded in the last few million years? lol
It had plenty of time for erosion.
In 1998 the pics were shot through clouds, thus the clouds had to be edited out.
The last NASA pictures were the first ones to be taken so close and with no clouds or storms covering the area.

I don't actually know the altitude of the Cydonia face image. Thus I have no clue of its scale. As such, I cannot estimate what volume of dust would have to be deposited on the thing to make a significant difference. If it's a relatively small object, sure. If it's several miles across ... I doubt it. Although I don't know anything about the relationship between "dunes" and gravity. There could be plenty of loose sediment on and around that thing, and the original face picture was just one of those statistically-bizarre coincidences.

My personal take on all of this, and it's one I do wish I could communicate more clearly to some of the anomaly enthusiasts, is that I'm sure there's life out there. And it may well have made its way through the solar system. But there are people out there postulating about the grooves on Phobos; I came across one in my search for the image that had to do with the probes. It speculated that whoever was responsible for the disappearing canyons on Mars had actually abandoned one base and moved into a hollow Phobos. It doesn't have to be every damn rock and shadow in the system. I'm more willing to play a version of Pascal's Wager here. No, I don't believe that Stonehenge was a landing site for a flying saucer, despite its shape and theoretic appearance when intact. On the other hand, I won't be terribly surprised if it turns out to be so. Truth is stranger than fiction, and I read Clive Barker and Ray Bradbury, so the Universe has one hell of a standard to beat. And it will. It does every day, in fact; I just don't get to see it all.

If there's a monolith, or artificial satellite, or alien base, or even a 30-km spotlight out there, well, it's a big Universe, and for our purposes a big solar system. We can't even find weapons that we know are there, a 6'4 Arab with a lethal streak, nor an historically-valid hint of Jesus. That we're going to accidentally stumble across evidence of advanced civilization in the Universe where we didn't expect it (maybe the Egyptians built the spotlight, since it wasn't aliens) accords to a certain degree with S.E.P. theory, but no amount of jumping and blinking and wagging the head will bring about what legitimately isn't there. We'll find it, eventually. In the meantime, I don't know what bothers me more, the "wasted resources" of inquisitive minds enraptured by a new religion, or the embarrassing spectacle some folks raise in the process of making the idea of extraterrestrial life seem like a notion left for whacked-out fringies.

Right now, all I can think of is a droning chant: "Craaaab People ...."

TIASSIA this is for you!


So basically, you want me to prove or claim it is something to better enable people to debunk it? Sure, I'll give it a shot! :D

Okay! - It's an alien-built object. An "alien structure" as witnessed by Karl Wolfe when he stated the following:

"We walked over to one side of the lab and he said, “By the way, we’ve discovered a base on the backside of the moon.” I was a little terrified, thinking to myself that if anybody walks in the room right now, I know we’re in jeopardy because he shouldn’t be giving me this information. Then he pulled out one of these mosaics and showed this base on the moon which had geometric shapes—there were towers, there were spherical buildings, and things that looked somewhat like radar dishes, but they were very large structures".

As he states above - THEY WERE VERY LARGE STUCTURES. Using his testimony I will present the following, just for giggles and because this is the internet! :D

Towers:
http://img54.exs.cx/img54/4953/screenhunter0139sk.jpg

Radar Dishes:
http://img54.exs.cx/img54/5836/screenhunter0048bs.jpg

Both these images are from the same images.. :)

More proof of aliens..


<img src="http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3634&stc=1">
What more do you want..
Crackpots rule.
:)

An "alien structure" as witnessed by Karl Wolfe
http://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/boy.html

More proof of aliens..


<img src="http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3634&stc=1">
What more do you want..
Crackpots rule.
:)

Considering that the majority of the population believes ETI exist's, and that their vehicles and person's have been witnesses for thousands of years it's not crazy to think you could find some evidence of them on alien worlds.

The mere fact that you think I'm crackpot because of this say's a lot about you, and you're mindset.

You seriously need to consider why you post such a thing. What is it that drives you to consider those who believe in Aliens to be crackpots?

The funny thing is - you probably believe in alien intelligence, yet still consider UFOERS crackpots :D

Considering that the majority of the population believes ETI exist's, and that their vehicles and person's have been witnesses for thousands of years it's not crazy to think you could find some evidence of them on alien worlds.
Sorry I didn't know that, Ill be more careful next time.
;)

Btimsah,

Humans have acknowledged alsorts of sightings for thousands of years, and not all of them alien. afterall there is the over speculated occurance of ghosts, angels, demons and strange but always "true" happenings.

People always say "Ufo's have been seen for centuries", but they tend to neglect where their source of information came from. Were they there to see it for themselves? No they pulled that information from some program thats entire reason for existance is "UFO's" or from a book on "UFO's", where the author or producer wouldn't have done a good enough job at supporting their arguement if they didn't develop a background case. This case is the case they choose to percieve and premote to the viewer or reader, as apposed to the viewer or reader actually going out and doing their own homework.

There were alot of things depicted in history, however there was also alot of "Ergot" due to the lack of fungicides. Ergot is believed to have been at the roots of L.S.D. when ingested it can generate convulsions and of course hallucinations, even fevers.

(In fact it's suggested that Ergot was the main cause for the church to believe that people were being demonically possessed when they didn't understand the particular poisoning.)

I then don't need to go into great detail to suggest that our primative ancestors view of the world was far different, with everything they couldn't explain with science being termed as something un-natural or shaped by the hand of a god. I'm sure this is even the start of pseudoscience in the sense that those people that realised the power of manipulating others through their opinion gained them stature and wealth.

Kind of reminds me of the old joke (which might not be seen funny by a few so I apologise)


A priest asks tells the pope, "I feel I am losing faith with our religion, I've started to think that 'God' doesn't exist, what should I do?"

The pope replies, "Do what the rest of use do ... 'Bullshit' "

I remember when I was a little kid, my room had a stucko like celing. When laying in bed with a reading lamp on, looking up at the celing I saw pretty much everything I could think of, from outlines of faces, and trails, to building and dragons, It was quite fun but i doubt when then made the celing it was ment to look like that.....Im a very open minded person, I do belive there are structures on mars, that are quite apparent and very obvious. I stared at this picture you said has a bridge and a spotlight and I really cant see anything.

I remember when I was a little kid, my room had a stucko like celing. When laying in bed with a reading lamp on, looking up at the celing I saw pretty much everything I could think of, from outlines of faces, and trails, to building and dragons, It was quite fun but i doubt when then made the celing it was ment to look like that.....Im a very open minded person, I do belive there are structures on mars, that are quite apparent and very obvious. I stared at this picture you said has a bridge and a spotlight and I really cant see anything.

The difference is, this is not the wall. These are NASA images in which they should have been investigating this kind of thing. They should, maybe they did. They have not said anything about it. Now that I think about, I am not sure I've ever heard NASA even once mention anything look like an intelligently built structure. Why not? They could simply say they want further investigation of them, and make it