NEW Moon Structures?

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

  1. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    So you do troll pseudoscience to attack people..
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Balerion Banned Banned

    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:

    But THEN you said:

    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.

    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 16, 2004
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Approaching Pavonis Mons by Balloon?

    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.)
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2004
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. phlogistician Banned Banned

    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.
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    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, at Utopia Planitia.)

    Sorry for the digression, but is it a gut instinct of yours, or just something I've missed in the meantime?
  9. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    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?
  10. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    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 (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.)
  12. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    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. their minds. their minds. their minds. 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.
  13. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    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.
  14. btimsah Registered Senior Member

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

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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.

    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?

    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?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    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.
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    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--

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    --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.
  17. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Tiassa, again you're wrong.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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?
  19. Arch_Rival Registered Senior Member

    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.
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    I pulled the image from a Martian anomaly site approximately as coherent as you. See Faces on Mars.

    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.

    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.
  21. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    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.
  22. Balerion Banned Banned


    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.

  23. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    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.

Share This Page