Gigantic structures on the front side of the moon + other 'anomalies'

ok, so we agree the wikipedia photo is real, righ? let's move from there. you think crater is to tiny to see the details. here are the zoomed in portions of the wikipedia photo again. take a better look now that you admit the photo is real and tell me those are illusions, weather balloons or swamp gas.

Soylent Green Is People
To answer your question directly, I'm sure that wiki image is a real and true image. However, the crater in question is tiny on that image, and there is no way to see the detail that you want to see

reply to post by tachyonator7


Yeah, but the images taken with higher magnification show better detail -- and in those images they look like craters.

Again, you are ignoring the better-resolution images in favor of the low-resolution images because the blurriness and lack of detail in those low-resolution images supports your pre-conceived notions of "I want something to be there".

Honestly, when I first read your post, I said to myself "that's interesting, but I want to see what better images show me". I was open-minded , but I wanted to see what the better images showed me. I looked at those better images (several of them from several different sources), and those images showed me that they were just craters.

You, on the other hand, seem to be dismissing those better images simply because they do not support what is already in your head. That is the definition of being close-minded. It seems that in your mind, the low-resolution/low detail images show something that the high-res/more detailed images do not, therefore the higher-resolution images should be ignored.

The Eudoxus crater can be seen much more close-up by thousands of amateur astronomers all over the world than you show in your small "blown-up" image. Why do you think you see a coliseum in those low-res images that nobody else can see when they view that crater much more close up than your images show?

i am anything but close minded. i am ignoring the better resolution images because none of those will ever show you any of these structures, it would be nasa slaping themselves in the face admiting something's there afterall after fifty years of systematic lies and deception. untill you realize they indeed do airbrush all of the space imagery, especially the close ups of the planets surfaces, how could you look into this for real. it's a futile effort to try to convince the indoctrinated individual who had not yet came to realize he's been lied too about nature of the moon and other planets and many other things.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

I can't believe you missed all the other structures... you must have no imagination. I can zoom in on any part of a picture of the moon taken with a 9" scope and find structures or spacecraft or other anomalies. It's totally covered with cities and mining operations and all kinds of stuff. In fact sometimes I think there's more going on up there than here on Earth. More lifeforms. I think sometimes that we are the moon andwhat we call the moon is the actual planet. Or at least the center of aattention. There's gotta be life all throughout it being that it's hollow. Like the death star. Smaller craft constantly coming and going. And you come to us with these two tiny outposts... Can't see the forest for the trees eh? Well, I know you feel like the "far out" one here, but as far as moon conspiracies, you're a lightweight as far as I'm concerned. I'm wondering if YOU'RE the one who's blind.

Btw... I realize now why you haven't been finding much. Your photos are waaay too modern. Too "crystal clear". Nasa has wiped them clear of most points of interest. The REAL pros use way blurrier, way lower quality photos. That's where the real good stuff is hidden.

i smell the stench of a cheap sarcasam.

reply to post by 3n19m470

reply to post by tachyonator7

i am ignoring the better resolution images because none of those will ever show you any of these structures

Really?.....your ignoring better resolution images in favour of poor resolution images because the poor resolution images show towers and Colosseums but the higher resolution images only show craters?



seriously?

right, nasa is not tampering with high res photos and bin laden brought down wtc from the cave in afganistan with his goat-bone remote, also santa clause is real.

reply to post by Argyll

What is strange is that nobody on this page has a high resolution Telescope to search for these things....

(Typcial conspiracy site: a lot of talkers..no one with equipment)

reply to post by tachyonator7

right, nasa is not tampering with high res photos and bin laden brought down wtc from the cave in afganistan with his goat-bone remote, also santa clause is real.

Show me your favourite NASA tampered high res image......just for the hell of it!

tachyonator7
i am anything but close minded. i am ignoring the better resolution images because none of those will ever show you any of these structures, it would be nasa slaping themselves in the face admiting something's there afterall after fifty years of systematic lies and deception. untill you realize they indeed do airbrush all of the space imagery, especially the close ups of the planets surfaces, how could you look into this for real. it's a futile effort to try to convince the indoctrinated individual who had not yet came to realize he's been lied too about nature of the moon and other planets and many other things.

I was talking about the better-resolution pictures from amateur astronomers with good telescopes.

You are basing your evidence on zooming into this picture:
Full size image here

Instead of pictures that can be found from numerous amateur astronomer sources taken with better telescopes with higher magnification, such as this one:



Again, I don't understand why you are ignoring the higher magnification images in favor of the lower magnification images. High-detailed images of Eudoxus crater taken by powerful telescopes show no coliseum. Your low resolution image taken from a less powerful telescope needs to be blown up so much that there is no way to see the detail properly.

You say you are open minded, but ignoring the higher magnification images makes me wonder if you are. Heck, at least I was open-minded enough about the information in your OP that took I the time to investigate your claims by looking at other sources (SEVERAL other sources). Maybe you looked at other these sources that show no coliseum, yet for some reason you ignore them, and the only reason I can fathom is simply that they don't support the pre-conceived notion that you already have in your head. It seems no amount of evidence to the contrary could make you question that pre-conceived notion.

You're argument is "when I zoom into the picture of the tiny Moon, I see what looks like a coliseum-looking structure where a crater should be. Therefore,all of those higher-magnification images that show that the coliseum-looking structure is nothing more than craters must be fake", and that is just a fallacious argument.

op i really wanted to see what you think you are seeing, i really did, but there's nothing in these pics that show evidence of artificial structures

i am not denying your amateur photo doesn't show these structures but i can see wikipedia photo does and i am asking you why?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

ATTENTION: There are hundreds of people besides NASA who take hi-res pics of the moon.

tachyonator7
i am not denying your amateur photo doesn't show these structures but i can see wikipedia photo does and i am asking you why?

Because it is a tiny picture of the moon that shows poor detail. Zooming into a picture that lacks detail will not give you MORE detail -- it just gives you a zoomed-in picture of poor detail.

The higher magnification images shows more detail.

I'm sorry if I didn't answer this directly sooner, but I thought it was obvious that:

lower magnification telescopic picture of the moon = poor detail
and
higher-magnification telescopic picture of the moon = greater detail.

Yet you defer to what you think you see in the lower detailed image instead of believing what the greater detailed picture is showing you.

Let me guess...

It looks like craters, it smells like craters, it feels like craters, it looks like many other craters on the moon...

What could it be?

OK tach you can get a good look at the moon every two weeks. Find an observatory or univ/college with an astronomy course and ask them if you can take alook for yourself and get some pics. Most astronomers love it when you go and pick their brain (just don't mention your belief). You can also join a local astronomy club as they are popular virtually everywhere and if you live in a large city you can easily find someone with 10", 12" and even larger scopes. Heck there's an online site that shows how to build a 15" refractor for around $250. Speaking of online join someclubsand make some friends and get them to look for you, youwon't even have to leave the house.

Like the real debunkers say "pics or it didn't happen!".

kauskau
What is strange is that nobody on this page has a high resolution Telescope to search for these things....

(Typcial conspiracy site: a lot of talkers..no one with equipment)

edit on 12-3-2014 by kauskau because: (no reason given)

Lots of amateur and a few pros on this site maybe tach could give a shoutout to them to prove his point.

reply to post by tachyonator7

i am not denying your amateur photo doesn't show these structures but i can see wikipedia photo does and i am asking you why?

Who posted the photo on wikipedia?.......you do know that anyone can post anything to wikipedia right?



I do hope you haven't based your whole premise on something you grabbed off wikipedia......you didn't did you?

you don't have to point out higher resolution photo shows higher details. i can see you are still refusing to admit the wikipedia photo shows the 'colosseum' with the tower and the cylider shaped building. repeating the counter 'proof' there are high resolution photos that don't show it is off the point. to get a high detail close up you would need really big telescope. those who have them don't publish them or they get airbrushed. Paranal and other observatories could show us a footprint on the moon if they wanted to, but you never see them relasing photos of the moon. i think you get the point.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

so wikipedia is using fake or photoshoped photo of the moon dispite literally dozens of thousands of nasa and other photos they could've used just to mess with us? you must be a wizard, you solved the mistery.. or rather a troll.
for your information, not anyone is allowed to post anything on wikipedia especially on subjects such is planetary bodies where informations are been thoroughly checked and carefully edited with prominent sources and references.

reply to post by Argyll