NEW Moon Structures?

Hahaha, who want's to play some chess?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

From: http://cps.earth.northwestern.edu/LO/lo3-112-h2a.tif (top left)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What lat/long and at what resolution are the photos?

If you can't provide this basic information, there's nothing to discuss.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The image: Lunar Orbiter 3, frame 112a - High quality

• Incidence: 71
  Emission: 36
  Altitude: 44.0
  PP Lat: -1.8
  PP Lon -8.2
  Corrected Resolution 0.8

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Its just a fuzzy image of a rock that looks like a chess piece...

 

This short analysis will doubtless fall on deaf ears for btimsah, but sciforums has a preponderance of new members lately, indicative that there are many people finding their way here via google and feeling the urge to post in the Pseudoscience forum as well as other forums. One can only surmise that there are many more such visitors that read but do not join the membership roles.

That having been said, an analysis such as this one will not be wasted, even though btimsah will undoubtedly respond with "nice try," and "typical debunker tactics," etc.

<><><>><><>><><><><><><><><><><><>

A quick look at a marked up version of btimsah's latest "OMG it's a structure!" photo gives general deconstruction of each of the random enlargements he's posted in this thread.

<img src=http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3732&stc=1>

Note that the shadows follow a common, general direction from the light source, (the sun) though some may appear to diverge in this or other photos. This is due to the morphology of the lunar landscape and the low angle of the sun, however, and an expected effect, even on Earth.

Also note that the shadows along the three features that btimsah alleges to be a "chesspiece" shape don't follow the expected direction of a feature that would be as tall as btimsah seems to see. Instead of one shadow for one feature, we get three shadows for three features (or possibly one low ridge). If it were one feature, the bulk of the shadow would be higher up in the frame, instead, the longer portion of the shadows places the highest peak of the feature near the bottom of the frame.

Now, I realize that btimsah doesn't actually think this is a chesspiece, but its clear from the "woo-woo" nature of the post that he thinks this is an intelligently made structure, perhaps a "statue."

To the new member, passing reader, or longtime lurker, this is pretty much the gist of btimsah's posts in this and a couple other threads. He is very much taken by the geology of the luner landscape, and the many photographs of it, to the point that he sees things that simply do not exist and have very prosaic explanations. In many of his posts, btimsah makes fallacious assumptions that because a photo has areas of high contrast that this equates to "metallic objects," when in fact this is an expected problem with photography when shooting extremes in contrast and brightness.

The camera makes a compromise in its f-stop: if the iris is opened too large, far too much light enters the optics and washes out the image; if it opens too small, not enough light can enter to discern regions in shadow. When the field of view for the camera includes both brightly lit areas as well as shadow, the compromise will show washed out regions in the brightest spots and near blackened regions in the spots of heavy shadow.

This effect can create the illusion of "structure" where none exist and, apparently to btimsah, the illusion of "metalic" objects.

Btimsah is amazed and awed by the lunar surface because he sees "alien structures." Several knowlegable and educated members of sciforums have demonstrated the fallacy of his assumptions. Does that mean that there are no alien structures on the moon? Of course not. There might very well be. It just means that nothing btimsah has shown in this thread comes close to creating the slightest reason to believe such a notion.

 

I find this absurd. Someone has an overactive imagination.

 

Actually, I'm glad you took the time to respond with something of substance pertaining to the image. Though, again my name was mentioned a lot. Which is why you did such a bad job debunking this image.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Heh.. Focus on the image, not me. You'll do a better job of debunking next time!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This structure produces one (1) shadow. There's no point at which the one shadow stops. In fact you had to fabricate "points" at which you wanted the shadows to stop too illustrate how it's 3 seperate rocks. The green shaded area above was higlighted using the Magic Wand Tool in Photoshop. It highlighted the entire shadow as one contigious area of similar color. I shaded it green to illustrate there's no break in the shadow.

If these are three seperate shadows, then are they floating on top of eachother using alien technology? I thought it was one large structure (natural or otherwise) creating the shadow. Even with you're explanation I don't understand where these rocks are.

 

If you would have read my post more carefully, you would have noted that I implied the shadows could actually be one shadow of possibly one low ridgeline.

Also, you might have learned something about photography... photoshop's magic wand tool is notorious for selecting regions that are simply of similar tone/hue, particularly in such poor resolution (regardless of the original image's resolution, at this level of enlargement, the resulting resolution is poor).

If the shadow were from an object that was vertical as you imply, why then does it cast in the wrong direction and for too short a distance? The explanation, of course, is that it is from a small ridge and that the highpoint is in the red where I indicated.

Its a shame, really, that you are unable to see past your desire to believe that has created an overwhelming bias in your ability to think critically. Fascinating, but still a shame.

 

There is nothing in the image to debunk. If there is focus on you it is because the structures are in your head.

Don't respond with 'nice try'.

 

Here is another amazing find. It is clearly a fossil of a bird of some type as the lack of feathers suggest. The scull is in the upper mid right, various bones can be seen scattered about the center. The fossilized remains of the multi band phaser (just in frame on the left) clearly indicates that it must have been a ritual sacrifice of some type..
<img src="http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/366/2P158855514EFFA2DHP2514L7M1.JPG">


Puzzling is NASA's intense interest in the glowing orb that flys above the mars landscape, yet on their web page there is no reference of giant flying ords of any type..
<img src="http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/366/2P158854315ESFA2DHP2600L8M1.JPG">
There are hundreds of images of this orb.




NASA is not even trying to cover it up any more, the alien mind controls have fixed our perception..

Debunkers should take a heavy dose of LSD before their opinions will have any genuine merit, its the only way to disrupted the alien mind control agents completely.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I find you're arrogance to be funny. Hey, at least you're consistant. I always write the, "Gee its a shame crap" off as being a drama queen or trying to use those terms to win debating points.

What I really think the "chess" piece is, is this;

First of all, this is the angle at which it was taken;

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think there are two craters, to the left of a rise. Creating the illusion of a tall structure of some sort. In order for this to be a "structure" it needs to stand vertically, not horizontally.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Though the shadows do give you the impression of a 3-dimensional shadow, I doubt that it is.

 

The first image is cut-off, but looks like a rock. No, really! It does. The second image of the "orb" is nothing but a moon, isnt it? I've seen those kinds of images from NASA about a billion times of a fuzzy moon off in the distance, taken by an orbiter.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hey, Moon photo maniacs, catch! -> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4209995.stm