NEW Moon Structures?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by btimsah, Dec 8, 2004.

  1. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    Blindman and Silas, I understand you're questions. I would best describe it as this. Any information that NASA recieves that illustrates the technological aspect of ETI - would represent a threat to our national security.

    However, "Alien life" itself is probably not the problem, but their weapon's, crafts and structures. From testimony over the year's, they are faster, bigger and stronger than us - thus a national security threat.

    I agree that most scientist's would LOVE to discover such a thing, however it would be ILLEGAL for NASA scientists to break that law. I wish I could prove that "Evidence of alien intelligence, and their technology" was classified, but that's hard to do.

    I will try to present some evidence later on though..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Silas asimovbot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    Such aliens would be a national security threat - knowledge about the aliens is not a National Security threat.

    It is our military secrets which must be kept secret from the public, not the enemy's - unless revelation of the enemy's secrets would give away to the enemy a source of our intelligence. A fairly obvious example is the Cuban missile crisis. The news that the Soviets were building up a nuclear capability just of the US South Eastern coast should surely cause considerably more panic than news that aliens we've never met might have better technology than we do - and indeed considerably panic and worry was engendered, but the US Government had no problem about publicising exactly that threat.

    In this day and age, you can surely see that government (any government) does not achieve its aims by hiding potential threats away - it has always and continues to achieve control of the populace by maximising all potential threats far in excess of their actual danger, viz: the Patriot Act and those stupid Homeland Security "threat levels".
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    Well, most of the times in the case of NASA their "knowlege" would require images. Images illustrate the technology of said alien intelligence. However, you do not know if "knowlege about the aliens is not a national security threat". If you do, show me. So far it seem's anything UFO related is classified. Some is, and some isnt so who know's?

    I agree that there are some top-secret programs which are classified, but I also feel they wish to hide UFO/ETI for several reason's. One of which is their desire to learn from them, reverse engineer their technology, and make sure other countries do not get to it before our military does.

    Interesting.. I HAVE to think these li'l aliens must be big, bad and strong for the military to be afraid of them. Or think we would be afraid if we knew. Then again, maybe it's just about technology.

    I understand NASA would classify secret military aifcraft's or test programs. However, I also believe they classify certain (Unknown) aspect's of information about UFO'S and/or ETI.

    You seem to only believe they coverup secret military aircrafts. I've never seen any evidence that they have covered up secret governmental crafts. Actually the little evidence or testimony we have point's to UFO/ETI connection, more than a secret craft connection.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    btsimah - you have found some (all) of my posts insulting. Do you know how insulting it is when you persistently ignore expert advice? What gives you the right to implicitly tell me that four years of hard work at University followed by thirty plus years of attentive interest are ill founded?

    "They are ordinary rocks"
    Ophiolite, B.Sc. (Hons. 2.1) University of Glasgow

    Actually, its not at all insulting. To be insulted by this I should have to value your opinions on, and understanding of, the matter. But it is frustrating, so I shall maintain my 'sniping' until you display some sense.
     
  8. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    I disagree. They are not rocks.
    Timsah, B.S. (Fake. 3.1.) University of FU.

    haha okay that was a joke...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Uh, but no, I still disagree with you. They dont look like rocks.
     
  9. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    Maybe you haven't seen enough rocks.
     
  10. Blindman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    What something looks like and what it is are two completely different things.
     
  11. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    How is this a logical statement for you to make?
    Let's assume we are of equal intelligence (and hope that is not too insulting to either party).
    One of us has a degree in geology and an ongoing interest in astronomy and has been looking at rocks, and photographs of rocks, and reading books on rocks, especially planetology, for a further 35 years..
    The other appears to be a keen amateur and relative novice.
    As an objective outsider (Norval, sit down now. I said objective, not objectionable) who is it logical to pay more attention to?

    btimsah, if I post a view in a science forum on a topic on which I am not well versed - for me that's a pretty broad range, but quantum mechanics, string theory and particle physics are good examples - and someone who knows more than I comes along and contradicts/corrects me, I really need to have my head buried pretty far in the sand not to take heed. I just don't see how you can justify such, excuse me, ignorance, in the literal sense.
     
  12. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    Then perhaps you can explain, from a "geological" viewpoint how this object was created?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Note the main feature which I think is rather unusual are two things. Number 1, the way in which the bottom of the object comes to a point, and rounds to an oval shape as you go up. Secondly, the metallic surface to the right of the brilliantly lit face.

    I don't really doubt you're knowlege of geological stuff. I just doubt you're ability to see anything other than a natural geological structure, not matter what the image shows.
     
  13. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    Here's another interesting anomaly from LO3-125-H3LEFT;

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    I dunno, maybe the Aliens on the moon speak english..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Give me a U!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Man, I find stranger and stranger stuff on this moon of ours everyday. The more I study these very large scans, the more convinced I am that there ARE intelligently built structure's on our Moon. However, they can be a bit faint to find...

    Fullsize image is here: http://cps.earth.northwestern.edu/LO/lo3-142-h2b.tif

    (Caution: Very large .TIFF image) Verify that I did not "makeup" the U. :m:
     
  15. Silas asimovbot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    I already did - I talked about the Cuban missile crisis. And the "anything UFO related is classified" is really meant UFO reports which have involved the government, and these have invariably only dealt with military involvement. So the fact that there is National Security censorship on nearly every official US UFO document (though scarcely is there censorship of anything of significance) is not really surprising.
    Lets take it further; On May 1, 1960 an unidentified flying object was flying over the then Soviet Union. Probably nobody except military experts were even aware of it, since it was so high up it could not really be seen from the ground. However, the Soviet military authorities could see the UFO and were in fact able to shoot it down. They captured the occupant, subjecting the inhabitant to extensive questioning, and examined the remains of the craft, of course - getting as many secrets of the intrusive alien power as they could extract from both craft and occupant, with which it was, believe me, jam crammed full - technology well beyond the Russian's current capabilites. Of course, the full extent of what they learned there was forever kept secret and limited to the very highest security levels.

    What is notable, however, is that the fact that the craft had been shot down, the fact that the craft had indeed existed in the first place, the fact that the alien power had been sending craft of this nature, was not kept secret - in fact it was publicised across all the world.

    I am of course referring to the shooting down of the U2 spyplane in 1960 and the capture of its pilot, Francis Gary Powers (1930-1977).

    This is what I mean about "knowledge of an alien race". If there was the smallest bit of evidence of intelligence behind what you see in the photographs, of course the greatest military brains would extensively examine every particle of it to extract as much alien technology as possible, and this alien technology would be kept as an utter secret by the powers that discovered the information. But the fact of an alien presence on the moon would not and in fact could not be kept a secret, just like US spyplanes over Soviet Russia could not be kept a secret. It would be neither desirable nor possible for the US government to keep the existance of an alien race secret, no matter how much technological knowledge we were getting from them. It's easy, anyway, to keep the complicated specialist knowledge secret, but not the underlying reality.


    Only if you take abduction stories at face value, which too many psychologists in America seem willing to do. (See Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World for a discussion on this). You only have to watch the History channel (at least the UK version) on which there are many programmes about past prototypical military projects which were kept secret for many years and are only now coming to light - one such project I can think of straight away was the Orion nuclear pulse rocket programme. But I still don't see the point - I have not based my reasoning on the idea that the goverment keeps military secrets, not UFO ones, therefore there are only military secrets, not UFOs to keep - I can see the flaw in that logic, so I don't argue that way.

    As to your subsequent photographs (and argument with Ophiolite), Ophiolite's point that he's an expert on rocks and photographs of rocks is scarcely answered by a photograph of a big, blurry white blob, now is it? Neither is there anything anomalous about the next photograph. It looks like a hill and it doesn't look remotely artificial. That suposed "U" isn't clear either in your blown up small photograph, and I can't even find it on the big photograph (which just shows a bog-standard moon surface with nothing remotely anomalous about it whatsoever).
     
  16. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Silas, the earlier points in your post are well argued. I liked your analogy with Powers. I would like to clarify a point for you and btimsah from your last paragraph. I would rather characterise myself as having some expertise with rocks and photo-interpretation, than to say I am an expert. The distinction may seem a small one, but I think it is important.
    When I first looked at btimsah's photos my reaction was pretty much the same as several others - "There is nothing out of the ordinary here." btimsah insisted that if we could not see anything we were closeminded skeptics who he would not talk to:
    "A debunking skeptic literally think there are no anomalous images."
    " If you consider yourself a debunker and are close minded, then don't bother wasting anyones time."

    (That's hardly a scientfic approach. Science welcomes criticism. It is how advances are made. Hypotheses are put forward so that they may be critically assesed.
    Btimsah has made much of the fact that those with 'college educations' close the door on those who don't. This is nonsense. I will close the door firmly on anyone, including Nobel prizewinners, if they fail to follow sound scientific principles. Likewise, I will hold it open for anyone who is committed to those same principles. I have tried in my posts, sometimes with much frustration, to communicate this to btimsah.)

    At any rate I now tried looking at the photos again. Eventually - I think it took several days - I could imagine the bridges and the spotlight that btimsah sees. But only as I might see faces in clouds. So, I put on my geologist hat and looked at the shots with as much of a trained eye as I could dredge up. The shots were normal.
    It had been self evident to me when I glanced at the photos that they were normal. Several others had said as much. btimsah had dicounted these statements. I had some hope that he might pay more heed to a semi-trained viewpoint than those of casual observers. Alas, no.
    If btimsah can produce an expert in interpretation of planetary photos who agrees any of these are anomalous and explain why, I shall then be prepared to reconsider. Until that expert arrives I shall rely on my own expertise.
     
  17. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    lol, Actually I called it a U out of humor. Whatever it is, it's connected to the top of a small li'l crater and has very jagged turns to form a "U". This is just more evidence I've gathered after studying these large images.

    In order for other's to see some of these structures, one would have to look at these images themselves, at 100%. As to Oph, I have thought about trying to find both, a geologist and a perhaps a structural engineer?? Who are the people who use satelites to look for nuclear facilities? To find collapsed structures? There are some really faint, yet fantastic looking structures that are just barely hidden enough so as to make sure we can't pin anything down. For example:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I can see it, but I doubt that everyone can because once you zoom in sometimes all of the context is completely lost. As for NASA covering up evidence of ETI, or ETI built structures. Really, I have allready done that. At least for me!

    As for the danger of ETI, I suppose there are two dangers. 1. Their technological advancement. 2. Their ability to go in and out of our airspace without being stopped. I am not sure why, but my brother (who is an extreme skeptic) seem's to fully understand WHY the governement would/could hide evidence of our own technologically advanced crafts. However, would not want to, or could not hide evidence of technologically advanced ET crafts? Just because they can, means they ARE if UFO'S and evidence of ETI are classified. The reason none of the evidence regarding UFO'S that has been released has been nothing of importance, might be because everything of importance regarding UFO'S are still classified.
     
  18. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    First of all, if this is the first time you looked at these images then what "advice" were you giving me BEFORE you looked at them? You had allready decided these images were of "natural structures" without looking at them. You merely looked at them to confirm that bias.

    Secondly, a brightly shinning mettalic object, IS NOT a face in a cloud. If you wish to ignore the obvious metallic nature of the object - fine, have fun.

    The bridge I pointed out, is in the photo, and is not an illusion. You have not presented ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE to suggest it's an illusion or how it's not there.

    Nobody likes to think ETI structures are on our moon. For some reason, some seem to assume life was, or is on Mars, not the moon. So they go to such extreme links to write off, or discount rather strong photographical evidence which suggest otherwise. I understand how bizzare these images are, and how fantastic some can be. However, that inofitself does not make it an illusion, or faulty.
     
  19. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Btimsah, what the fuck are you on? Is English not your native language? Are you deliberately being obtuse or are you just plain thick?
    Annoyed? Tough. If you wish a serious discussion then get serious and read the fucking words.
    I said, and I quote, "the first time I looked at these pictures". I am referring to an event in the past. Specifically I had looked at them several times after you posted them on the 8th of December, before I replied, scathingly, on the 11th of December, noting among other things that "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."
    So, do not try to turn this around. I have seen more of your photos in the last month than I have of my wife! I have accorded you a bunch more respect in the time I have devoted to trying to see anything in your delusions than you have in the inane quote that opens this post.

    What gives you the ability to see what the non-lunatics on this thread have consistently failed to see i.e. the obvious metallic nature of photo 2. Grow the fuck up! The only metallic object here is the plate in your skull!

    Now repeat after me, until you fall asleep. These are ordinary photographs of ordinary lunar features.


    Now, pause for a moment btimsah. Slightly offended. Annoyed. Dismissive. That's how most of us feel when we read your hogwash. I will return to reasoned commentary with you when you are reasonable.

    P.S. I assume you are actually a psychology student conducting a field study, to identify the different reactions to the purveying of utter nonsense. When the study is complete do send me a copy. I think it will make interesting reading. I am looking forward to figuring prominently in it.
    Best Regards
    Ophiolite
     
  20. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    Ophiolite, this is a nice try, but illustrative of you're failure to explain HOW anything in these photos are natural. So you have to jump to personal attacks, and cursing due to you're inability to articulate anything of substance. Calling me crazy, and suggesting I'm running an experiment is nothing but lame debunkery inofitself. You're trying to impune the person, not the images. Nice try! lol, No, I am not running an experiment of any kind. Some could call you're paranoia crazy.

    I can say "fuck" too, but that does not make me anymore grown-up. I can see why someone like you would find these images to be "hogwash". That's why you are so mad. You know the metallic surface and brige like feature is in the photo's, but you write them off because you are a fanatical (angry) skeptic who troll's the pseudoscience area looking, TO DO JUST THAT. Congratulation's! You've done your job.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It is you're inability to PROVE you're claims that said images are "optical illusions". You have not once illustrated how they "optical illusions." You seem to be claiming they are interesting optical illusions, of nothing interesting..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Or, interesting natural formations, or optical illusions, because alien life cannot exist in you're endless game to attack woo-woos and have them killed?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Now, you don't have to be involved in these threads. You choose to be here, and more importantly and I think accurately, WANT to be here. You love it here.

    If I had to guess I would say you got mad because you cannot provide anything of substance to deal with these images, so you try to attack me personally and call me, "nuts".

    Or as some say, "Blah, blah, blah".
     
  21. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Begging your pardon, but this is the pseudoscience section of a science board. The woo-woo's are the trolls here. There are more than enough woo-woo/kook boards where everyone there will pat you on the cyber-back and say what a great "find" you have.

    Several of us have repeatedly pointed out the fallacies of your claims and contentions, making very good arguments for the nature of optical illusions, etc. Just because you keep saying, "that's not what these are" doesn't mean our analogies and analyses weren't correct. It simply means you lack sufficient education and intuition to make the cognitive associations.

    Clear evidence of your inability to comprehend the things he and others have been saying. That alien life probably exists isn't in dispute. What's in dispute is that the shadows, rocks and contrasts of light you keep saying, "look! Woo-woo! Woo-hoo! Its a "structure!" are evidence of anything beyond the Moon having interesting geology.

    I'd say he was upset because he provided plenty of substance to counter your nonsense, yet you discard it as irrelevant. He's a geologist, they tend to think in absolutes and looking for clear causes for effects. When he runs into an obstinate woo-woo with inconsistent critical thinking skills, it confuses him. Me? My minor is geology, so I can get that. But my major is anthropology, so I expect that the human factor will fail to conform to logic and reasonable cause for observed effects. Indeed, that's what fascinates me and drives me to continue filling in my field log for this wonderful opportunity at participant observation.
     
  22. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    Oh please, skin walker. This is another "try", but a failed one. What do you guy's do when a woo-woo post's something outside the pseudoscience area? You ask that "this crap be moved to pseudoscience". You then MOVE to the pseudoscience area to troll around and debunk, or remove information froma claim. Secondly, this was written too Oph.

    You're trying to debunk me, not the image.

    You have not ilustrated any geological event that could create these structures. Some have also said, there's nothing interesting in these photos, and THEN SAID it's just interesting geology.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Secondly, the bridge is self-evident in the photo's, as well as the metallic object. You're again, trying to debunk me and not the images.

    No, he offered no substancial evidence. He merely stated it, but never illustrated why. I stated it, and illustrated why. If he's a geologist, then he should be able to articulate what caused the formation. As of now, it's just his opinion as to "what could cause it too look like that". Which is typical debunkery. I wish you would stop responding when I'm quoting, or responding to someone else. Just make a seperate post, attacking me.
     
  23. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    Also, I have posted so many images on here It's hard to know which image is being referenced. Often times some of you seem to claim, everyone of them can be solved by merely saying, "rocks casting shadows". Thus, causing me to laugh uncontrollably. If you're going to offer a prosaic explanation, then explain in detail, WHY you believe it might be that and which image you're talking about. Otherwise, it's does sound like B.S. to suggest Rocks are responsible for everything on the Moon.

    For instance, this is not A ROCK:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What*** Natural process could create this bizzare feature? Note the tall object producing the shadow across the white area at the top.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2005

Share This Page