NEW Moon Structures?

Okay, what is this one as well?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have not even gotten any debunkery on this one. It's cool to say you don't know. There even appears to be a tall object at the top, though it could be an illusion. Still cool nontheless.

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No scale.
No focus.
No context.
No location.
No resolution.
No provenance.


No chance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, you're right about that. Not like it matters, you will believe what you believe and I will believe what I believe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here's another cool one..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Based on this image: http://cps.earth.northwestern.edu/LO/lo3-112-h2b.tif (For reference)

 

Actually it does matter. It could be anything from the size of a coin to a size of Vatican what can not be verified (sp), because no location is given.

 

You still have yet to demonstrate that anything you are showing us is a "structure." At best, you've shown some really cool rock formations, the forming processes of some may not be clear or known, which is interesting in and of itself.

But "structures" is in the thread title and hasn't been demonstrated. Did you have anything that would do this?

 

At best I've shown things that NASA saw and had to have considered it needs further investigation. On Mars, if they see a site which looks like it was drenched in water, they investigate and let us know what they theorize, but when it comes to "structures" they don't investigate, or even THEORIZE the possibility. For some reason the entire subject of possible alien structures are ignored. Perhaps they have you're mindset, and automatically rule out alien structures from the get-go. Or perhaps, as I've stated I believe, there is a strict security classification in place to quiet discussion or confirmation of these types of things.

 

What size would consistute something other than a rock? If it's huge, then the debunker will just say it's a "really large rock".. right? lol

 

It seems that you from the get-go assume that it's not a rock. At best you're just another opposite.

 

No, not really. What get's me thinking, "Not a rock", is when it look's to straight or linear to be one. Based on the shadow sometimes.

Then, also using common sense. In fact, in most images I've seen I see nothing but natural formation's. In the RARE image that I post on here, I actually find something interesting which I cannot explain as a rock. For example, these look like very large rocks:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

However, pointed edged jagged structures which don't form natural shape known for rocks like this:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I try to look at these images in a sensible way. Looking at each image as if I worked at NASA when they recieved these images in the 1960's.

 

Perhaps they ignore "alien structures" for the reason that they have trained geologists and physicists on staff who are able to offer more prosaic, sound and probable suggestions than the wild speculations and hopes by those that take a religious view of ETI-UFOs. I say "religious" because of the obvious correlations to the belief and hope for the existance of ETI-UFO as occurs in various religions of the world in regards to gods.

Constantly speculating on a bunch of rocks that have shapes or can cast shadows that remind you of structures you've seen doesn't come close being viable. Simply stating that those that criticize your speculations are being "close-minded" or are unable to "think out of the box" doesn't make it true.

People see man-made objects represented in the shapes of clouds, faces in the belching flame and billowing smoke of a burning building, and animals and gods in the patterns of the stars in the sky. Its no wonder that some can see shapes and forms they identify with in low resolution, blurry photographs of an alien landscape formed by forces they daren't try to comprehend beyond some "intelligence must have created it."

But it also has to be said that you're missing the point that Ophiolite and Avatar are making: simply displaying a photo without context and provenience tells whoever views it nothing. It offers nothing for discussion except to say "sure, it can resemble this or that." It would be akin to me excavating an archaeological site, removing an amphora and not bothering to record the 3 dimensional coordinates for the object or what else was found near the amphora. Looking at it on display tells the viewer nothing. Where, when, who, etc. are all questions that need answering.

The same is true for these types of photos. Ideally, you would highlight the blown up area on the original, but you could at least give a measurement of where the enlargement came from, i.e. 75% to the right, 33% up from the bottom; in the lower right hand corner; 12 cm right, 5 cm up; etc.

That way, we could offer some reasonable explanations. But then, you don't want reasonable explanations. You want "alien structures." I gave the original a look over and didn't see it within a minute or so and realized that its not worth spending more time on. Isn't that what the proponent of wild, unsupported claims hopes for? When asked to provide things like references, sources, provenience and context, skeptics of wild, unsupported claims are always told "go research it" or "man, do I have to show you how to use google?"

Typical pseudoscience BS.

 

To you, this will sound really condescending and rude, but it is, nevertheless, true. In order for you to look at each image as if you "worked at NASA when they received these images," you would need an education beyond high school. Preferably with a background in geology, chemistry and/or phyiscs.

 

Some may very well be natural features, that just look like structures. Investigate it further. Take more pictures of it. Discuss it during press conferences like you would the finding of "signs of past water". Signs of past structures. Since we do not know IF ALIEN'S exist, then we cannot rule that out as a possibility. Furthermore, how come these extremely high quality .TIFF Lunar Orbiter images, that I found, are the only times we've even heard of these LARGE COOL ROCK FEATURES? I've never once heard NASA even talk about these things. If they, are as you say, cool rocks formed by some unknown geological feature, wouldnt NASA be interested? Where's the discussion about it?

You just said a moment ago, you did not know if they were rocks or what natural occurance created them, but now you're saying otherwise to help you're ability to win debating points. When I state you are close minded, I don't feel that makes me right. I feel that it point's out why you have an inability to conceed that I might be right. You will always see rocks, when it comes to any "structure" on the moon. I don't always leap to either conclusion as evidenced earlier.

People seeing faces in the clouds, is a little different than finding very large structure-like features on NASA photographs never talked about before. If you're a geologist looking for collapsed structures, you don't rule everything you see out because some people see faces in clouds on earth. Another lame attempt at debunkery.

I suppose I would give you that information, if I thought it would matter. As I asked earlier, what difference would the size of the object make? No matter how big it is, to you it will be natural. You will always fall back on, "well NASA would have seen it, they did not, so it must be natural." Most of these lunar orbiter images have been found from the same site: http://cps.earth.northwestern.edu/LO/

Sorry you don't like my formating, I can try to improve on that. These images are very large so 56kers my not be able to download them. As for where on the image, I will try to pin-point that a bit better.

I've said repeatedly, I want to hear reasonable explanations. THE ONLY ANSWER I'VE BEEN GIVEN IS "A ROCK". That's like taking the new mars picture and saying "IT'S SAND". Secondly, I have given you as much information I have. The information is on that site next to each image, if you have not seen that information or even visited that site then you've never even tried to research the information I have given.

Yes, I like to find alien structures. Who would not? Because I believe I may be finding what NASA found in the 1960's but had to dismiss/hide because of the The National Aeronautics and Space Act.

To give an example of "a reasonable explanation" this image had me perplexed:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Someone suggested maybe it was form of Regolith:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think that's more than possible. I do also believe there's an outside chance it's something created, but not enough information really to sustain that. So, I lean more towad the Regolith solution.

 

We don't know if a lot of things exist... but we know that the probability of aliens visiting our solar system is very, very remote. Enough that even the most improbable geologic processes are far more probable.

I only meant to imply that these were geologic processes unknown to you, it's quite likely that there are geologists and the like that are quite comfortable with what they've seen and non-concerned. There is simply far too much data of actual importance to keep them busy than to question improbable possibilities as "alien structures." This would be akin to hypothesizing that the Moon had pockets of cheese and announcing this possibility to the media.

Again, I only meant to imply that you were ignorant about the geologic processes involved, not that others were. In fact, I can think of several right off the top of my head that would give some of the same effects you seem to think exist. Many of your "structures" are also simply tricks of shadow and light, which you seem to not care about.

Not at all. I readily concede that there is a possibility that you may be right. I simply don't think that the probability of it warrants the attention you give.

I disagree. I think you've come to some very obvious conclusions regarding alien structures and ETI-UFOs as evidenced in your a priori assumptions about aliens and ufos in general.

Two fallacies there. One, people have seen and photographed faces and objects in clouds and other things I mentioned that are infinitely more obvious as to the object they are supposed to resemble than your rocks. Two, you are still operating on the assumptiont that the geologists and other scientists noticed something worthy of discussion.

Not at all. It is a very reasoned argument to debunk crackpot speculations. In fact, this very argument is used by Dr. Carl Sagan in A Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, though worded somewhat differently. A geologist, archaeologist, or any scientist uses traps and caveats just like this as ways of avoiding assumptions about what they find.

Then don't bore us with your speculations if you aren't going to properly source them. I'm certainly likely to fall back on, "there's no provenience or context, so the photo doesn't matter" if you aren't willing to offer more information. But your obstinence lends credibility to what I said earlier: you don't want anyone to have enough information to effectively offer a more prosaic explanation.

That's because there is nothing to indicate any reason to believe otherwise. Everything you've show so far has all the characteristics of geology. Some of it interesting geology, but most of it just plain geology.

Your regolith hypothesis would be incorrect. When you see a shadow like this, you want to start thinking, "what else could cause a shadow like this?" The most likely cause is a rock (most likely ejecta from a crater impact) that is at the tip of the shadow, creating a dead zone of light that extends to the shadow of the crater's rim. This wouldn't need to be a tall object if the sun were low enough on the horizon. Think "out of the box," man.

 

That's not true. Have you ever heard of The Drake equation? Furthermore, it's you're opinion that the probability of aliens visiting our solar system is very, very remote. If so, then what are the probabilities?

Okay, but that's my point. I've not found one mention of the very odd shapped rocks. Even if they are "easily explainable" to a geologist, they are never mentioned. Don't you find a that a little odd considering their size, and shape? Really, I think you do find it odd. However, being in you're fanatical debunkery mindset you won't let yourself admit that.

You are funny. Any sort of natural feature you say created the structure would be considered a higher probability than an alien structure. So you can say whatever you want with the rules you've set up.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I've seen debunker's do this a lot.

That's my point, we all make our own idea's up as to what's probable. That's why I don't rule it out like you do. You use interesting logic. I can see how you must not find anything in space interesting, because, we havent proven it to exist yet. However, we can't prove that it excists, untill we prove it exists.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, I now believe there are some (perhaps) ruined or ancient alien structures on the Moon, and the Asteroid Eros. Maybe even Mars, though I've not yet really studied those images. This is based on a lot of different UFO stories, pictures, claims, events, coverups I've studied over the years. However, I am not saying every image I find interesting is "alien". Merely, that they could be, and in some cases I believe ARE. Just depends on which image. The large, dish like feature below is one of the most amazing ones yet:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have not pointed out one "face". You debunker's really only mention that as a cheap debunkery attempt, to deflect from the image itself and create doubt. These are structural objects, which you claim it's more likely to be natural. On some of these images, I disagree with you.

Well, using it in a comparable situation is fine. What you're doing is comparing apples to oranges to deflect from the image itself and create doubt about it without actually DOING ANYTHING to alter the substance the images contain. Of course, we disagree on what these images contain so oh well.

Oh please, you must think I'm stupid. Even if I properly sourced them, you would makeup some sort of plausible explanation, that you yourself did not believe, just so you could say it's "more plausible" than anything artificial. Nice try though.

You seem to be saying you need more information to know what it is, yet YOU KNOW IT'S NATURAL GEOLOGY.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

it's okay, I know what you're trying to say. You want to say it's natural, without really doing any work so as to make sure nobody start's to think I am on to something. "Got to end this pseudoscience juke at all costs".

I would have to look at the sun angle on this one, but both of those explanations are fine. But just to bug you even more, I still think there's a chance it's an alien artificially built structure.

 

Erm, that's the Act that set up NASA in the first place. I guess everything they do is regulated by that act, but I don't see where it states that NASA has an obligation to cover up evidence of alien beings, being as that would definitely come under the heading of the stuff they'd have to bring to the world's attention, under section 102 (d) (1):

(d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;​

 

Hmm, really?

Section 303 states; Information obtained or developed by the administrator in the performance of his functions under this act shall be made available for public inspection,

Except;

A - Information authroized or required by Federal statute to be withheld.
B - Information CLASSIFIED TO PROTECT THE NATIONAL SECURITY.

SPACE ACT PAGE You can read all about it there.

Now, I suppose the next thing you will jump to is this; "That does not mean they are covering it up". Or, "What proof do you have that our government/military considers ETI a threat to our national security".

That's a fair question, one I am researching now. However, it's important to understand that IF IT IS CLASSIFIED it may be impossible to prove because IT'S CLASSIFIED.. lol. However, maybe we can find some leakage!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now that I think about it, does the FBI have "de-classified" material's relating to UFO'S and flying saucers that was declassified through an FOIA request? Isnt that evidence enough that it's classified? :bugeye:

 

I'm sorry I missed it if it was explained earlier in the thread, but you said, "they covered it up in accordance with..." and then you named the act that established NASA without explaining why the act would apparently prevent NASA from doing what it clearly enjoins NASA to do. The fact that there's a National Security clause is hardly surprising, but very obviously refers to not publicising the work they do for the military, or military secrets their satellites might pick up about other countries (not that the guys who drafted the act even knew what a satellite was back in 1958!)

I do not remotely believe that any alien structures discovered by photography in the evident absence of any energy emissions which indicate activity would be classed as a military secret any more than the military should put itself on alert against the Ancient Romans and in the meantime keep all Roman archaeological finds secret from the world. Neither do I believe that if there were evidence of alien intelligences found that they would be kept from the public. The public has been prepared for the "cultural shock" that would entail for fifty years at the least, and the number of people sufficiently scared or disturbed by that news would not be that hard to handle. So I don't see the "Keep it from the people!" brigade would command the consensus.

 

There is to much to be gained with the announcement of aliens. No scientist would hold it a secret, no institution could resist the power they would gain from public knowledge. The alien conspiracy is just a crackpots dream.

Why hide it. It would be the greatest ever unifying force.

 

There is a difference. I believe what the evidence supports. You believe what you want to believe because it is exciting. I imagine that's as good a distinction as any between science and pseudoscience.