Alien Domes On The Moon? Let’s Set The Controversy to Rest!

sorry double post.

[edit on 3/1/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by zorgon
what do you mean of course

All our images are clearly labeled as to source with an original link...

I meant of course because its all too common to just see a close up of a feature/anomaly/jpg compression artifacts with the claim "OMGWTFALIENS!!!", yet nothing mentioned on where the feature is (even a specific side of the moon is a little diffuse, dont you think?) so that others have to dig through craters just to find additional images of it... That doesnt look anything like the first claim (and are often in higher resolution for some mysterious reason).

However you're are correct... Now. This has been added to the page on livingmoon:

"Close up location and labeled by Internos added Jan 02, 2009 from ATS Post ID 5558793"



[edit on 3-1-2009 by merka]

[edit on 3-1-2009 by merka]

reply to post by depthoffield


A member of the Pegasus Research Consortium IS a geologist. No, not me....but the material is often reviewed and the geologist definitely puts his 2 cents in.

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by zorgon
what do you mean of course

All our images are clearly labeled as to source with an original link...

I meant of course because its all too common to just see a close up of a feature/anomaly/jpg compression artifacts with the claim "OMGWTFALIENS!!!", yet nothing mentioned on where the feature is (even a specific side of the moon is a little diffuse, dont you think?) so that others have to dig through craters just to find additional images of it... That doesnt look anything like the first claim (and are often in higher resolution for some mysterious reason).

However you're are correct... Now. This has been added to the page on livingmoon:

"Close up location and labeled by Internos added Jan 02, 2009 from ATS Post ID 5558793"

[edit on 3-1-2009 by merka]

[edit on 3-1-2009 by merka]

I don't believe that you will find "OMGWTFALIENS" anywhere on thelivingmoon.com. Contributors to that site might be insulted that you use such simplistic terms to classify their hours of hard work.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I don't believe that you will find "OMGWTFALIENS" anywhere on thelivingmoon.com. Contributors to that site might be insulted that you use such simplistic terms to classify their hours of hard work.

Perhaps, but if they get insulted that easily I dont think they'd be doing that hard work to begin with. After all, they're trying to prove aliens/machinery on the moon.

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I don't believe that you will find "OMGWTFALIENS" anywhere on thelivingmoon.com. Contributors to that site might be insulted that you use such simplistic terms to classify their hours of hard work.

Perhaps, but if they get insulted that easily I dont think they'd be doing that hard work to begin with. After all, they're trying to prove aliens/machinery on the moon.

I cannot speak for the rest of the group, but i can speak for myself: i am trying to prove nothing. I enjoy seeing any evidence put forward, and wish to share that which i find.

If i had "proof", i likely would not be sitting here typing about it.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
A member of the Pegasus Research Consortium IS a geologist. No, not me....but the material is often reviewed and the geologist definitely puts his 2 cents in.

I think this doesn't make more perfect "square" the Aristarchos zone, and not make my responses to be "extraordinary claim" (and not entirely mine, but from wikipedia too) regarding geological reasons for the brightness of that crater comparative with others, and other peculiriaties of the zone.
I think geological reasons are enough common sense, but more data is needed to have a better well defined picture...but ... nuclear plants, mining operations and breathable moon atmosphere..now those are extraordinary claims...

I'm ALMOST tempted to represent all the Aristarchus data...

ALMOST... but since we already covered all that in a previous thread that can be found by ATS search I see little point in wasting the time...

Originally posted by depthoffield
...but ... nuclear plants, mining operations and breathable moon atmosphere..now those are extraordinary claims...

Yep! Just like the extraordinary claims made by our mainstream 'scientists' on the Big Bang, Black Holes, Quasars, Pulsars, Free Floating Planets, and so on! How come you believe all these theories without batting an eyelid? No one has proved all this so far, just like no one has scientifically disproved...nuclear plants, mining operations and breathable moon atmosphere. As well as the puzzle of how the Moon got here in the first place.

Errrr...Oh yes! Something big as Mars hit the Earth and gouged out the Moon from mother Earth without as much as producing a hole or depression at least a thousand miles in depth and few thousand miles in diameter!! Oh yeah, that's been covered up over millions of years by magma, the flattening process of the surface as a result of the Earth's centrifugal forces, atmospheric weathering and so on! All pretty believable stuff, what?

But to me and countless others it sounds more like hardcore sci-fi. To you it's fact, as our scientists who keep changing their theories at the drop of a hat, have said so. It's the 'in-thing' to be with the crowd, what? To even think otherwise is blasphemy!

Cheers!



[edit on 4-1-2009 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by zorgon
I'm ALMOST tempted to represent all the Aristarchus data...

ALMOST... but since we already covered all that in a previous thread that can be found by ATS search I see little point in wasting the time...

Ok, maybe is a good ideea to delete this thread? because all you said is in another thread you said.

Seriously, you post here some lens flares , or pareidolia things, (why here, then?)and you want here to be believed only?

I think the "evidence" have to be very qualitative and undeniable. If an anomaly cannot be filtered itself away from some simple common sense logical reasons despite hard pushing..then it is very likely to be just that: simple common sense reasons.



[edit on 4/1/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 4/1/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by mikesingh


The evidence for the big bang, black holes, quasars, and pulsars is there. It has been verified by multiple scientists, by various means, with various observations. The science, the math, supports the theory. The math is beyond me but that doesn't make it false. There is a lot of stuff that is beyond me. I can program a computer and even put one together but I can't design one and I sure as hell can't tell you exactly what's going on inside the CPU.

Where is your evidence? You keep trotting out the same false color images (provided by those same scientists you scorn) even though other, better images of the same location show nothing but rocks. You keep showing the same over zoomed pictures of light and shadow, adding "enhancements" and highlights to make sure that everyone else can see the same thing your mind's eye sees. You bring up simplistic calculations about gravity to claim that the Moon's gravity is much greater than what the orbits of satellites, the tides on Earth, and instruments deployed on the Moon tell us. Of course, you always have the fallback back position. The "evidence" is being hidden. The dog ate my homework. So the fact is, you have no evidence other than uneducated and imaginative guesses at what you are looking at. Aristarchus, yes a very bright crater. It reflects ultraviolet light very strongly (and visible light as well). Prove it produces its own light via a nuclear reactor (must be a very leaky one at that). Prove your "theory". While you're at it, disprove the existence of black holes (turnabout is OK, right?).

You scoff because scientists modify their theories to match their observations. You, on the other hand, tenaciously cling to your "theories" in spite of evidence to the contrary. You ignore the images, evidence, and science that contradicts your "theories". If you really had an open mind you would discard the invalid data in light of new data but you don't. It shows that you not only have little regard for real science but don't understand it.

You distort (intentionally or otherwise) the real science. Maybe if you paid a bit more attention to what those silly scientists say you may learn something. The collision theory of the Moon's origin does not involve "gouging" the Earth. There was no hole or depression. It did not take mere millions of years to "fill" in. The majority of the material which formed the Moon came from the other planet, not Earth and it happened billions of years ago. It is not a simple theory. The process of refining it is still happening but it accounts for things such as the Earth's rate of rotation and the comparative isotope ratios between the Earth and the Moon. These things, and the physics involved are evidence. It is complex and yes, hard to grasp, but just because it is hard to grasp does not mean it did not happen.

It's not blasphemy to question science. That's what science is about. But if you are going to question it you need to be able to come up with something more than "prove I'm wrong". Particularly when you have no evidence that you are right. Have fun with your ideas but don't presume to put them on the same level as real science.

[edit on 1/4/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by depthoffield
Ok, maybe is a good ideea to delete this thread? because all you said is in another thread you said.

Seriously, you post here some lens flares , or pareidolia things, (why here, then?)and you want here to be believed only?

How obtuse of you... I was referring to my material on Aristarchus... which has NOTHING to do with the OP or this thread... and I didn't post any 'lens flares'... this isn't my thread.

Please DO try to pay attention...

:shk:

And quite frankly I don't much care what you 'believe'... I merely post things that people are interested in hearing and talking about here at ATS. When I have absolute proof that I am allowed to talk about... I will call the BBC (Don't trust American media )

But it appears the OP was interesting enough to YOU to make you spend so much time here

[edit on 4-1-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by Phage The collision theory of the Moon's origin does not involve "gouging" the Earth. There was no hole or depression.

Well..... if you look at the Pacific Ocean.... and the "Ring of Fire" all around it of active volcanoes etc... You have your big hole And it caused Pangea to rip apart into what we have today...



Oh yeah gotta add that disclaimer... just a theory

[edit on 4-1-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

So perhaps you can explain the blatant reflections in those pictures?

actually, I think the real problem here is the incorrect use of the word blatant since not everyone sees them. Blatant things are obvious beyond denial. Reflections in that picture do not fit.

Ok, maybe my mistake, maybe because you said that Playboy pictures in 70' are with the same camera but not with lens flares....so suporting those OP.

I posted this link way back in the thread, when the point was first raised about the Moon's creation. Have a look please, I think it was overlooked and it's certainly relevant.

It's called 24 Hours of Chaos. It describes and illustrates how the Moon came into being due to the collision of another body. The language and terminology is aimed at the average intelligent person with basic science knowledge.

The images are clear and illustrate that there wasn't any 'gouging' or 'big holes' left in the Earth. It's all accounted for in the theory. Unfortunately, several years ago, the site had an animation which is no longer there. As previously mentioned, the theory has been accepted as the predominant theory but is still open to tweaks and changes

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mikesingh

 

Wow! So you’re trying to tell me that I should blindly follow all these ‘theories’ put forward? Sorry. I haven’t fortunately developed the sheep mentality so far and neither do I intend to.

The evidence for the big bang, black holes, quasars, and pulsars is there. It has been verified by multiple scientists, by various means, with various observations. The science, the math, supports the theory.

Huh? As I said, sheep mentality? Verified by multiple scientists? So it becomes incontrovertible evidence? In other words, proof? So then why is this still in the realms of THEORY? If all what you’ve mentioned as been proved beyond doubt, it should be included as LAWS of the Universe and Celestial Dynamics and not just ‘theories’. Do you get my drift?

Definition of 'Theory'.

A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. A hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation. An unproved assumption : conjecture.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

So don’t keep shooting from the hip about the validity of theories put forth (You’ve said all this before on another thread and its become sort of tiring), in order to convince me that these are facts. They’re not. They are just theories. Period!

Where is your evidence?

What’s your evidence? Are these theories that you trot out, laws/facts/proofs?

Aristarchus, yes a very bright crater. It reflects ultraviolet light very strongly (and visible light as well).

Oh? And where did you get this gem from? Are you an expert to make this comment with such authority? It would have been better if you had included words like ‘probably’, ‘likely’ etc. Jeeez!

Prove it produces its own light via a nuclear reactor (must be a very leaky one at that). Prove your "theory".

The trouble with you phage is that this self styled expert syndrome you have lately developed has blinded you to the point that you’ve started inventing and imagining things I never said! Where have I ever mentioned that it’s a nuclear reactor? Oh for God’s sake, read before you post! This is getting irritating.

While you're at it, disprove the existence of black holes (turnabout is OK, right?).

Since I’m at it, read this thread if you have the time. And go through Stephen J. Crothers formulae before you start shooting from the hip again as is your want. There's a lot of hand-waving dismissal about this, but nobody has actually taken the time to assess the technical merits of the arguments nor revisited the original Schwarzchild / Droste / Brillouin papers wherein black holes were shown to be false or the Hilbert paper(s). Now what turnabout are you talking about?

Black Holes Are A Myth!!

More here

You, on the other hand, tenaciously cling to your "theories" in spite of evidence to the contrary.

WRONG! As I mentioned earlier, you always seem to be on the wrong track! Show me one instance where I have CATEGORICALLY stated that those images are PROOF of ET civilizations/ alien artifacts? I have always accompanied them with question marks (?) and NEVER committed myself to saying that so-and-so artifact is PROOF of aliens! Yes. That could be evidence pointing toward proof but evidence isn’t proof per se.

And what do you imply by ‘evidence to the contrary’? Also, anything wrong if I cling to my ‘theories’? After all these are theories too. Does it hurt your ego in any way (though I couldn’t care less if it does)? I’ll continue doing what I’m doing.

The collision theory of the Moon's origin does not involve "gouging" the Earth. It is complex and yes, hard to grasp, but just because it is hard to grasp does not mean it did not happen.

And how are you so sure this happened? Ah yes, that’s the theory I learned in fourth grade. So did you I presume. As per your straw man argument, if it’s hard to grasp, the more valid is the theory! The simpler ones that are easier to grasp are nonsense! Occam’s razor lies buried here!

I don’t normally reply in such fashion, but I needed to put things in their correct perspective as a riposte to your diatribe that I considered a trifle distasteful. Since you are of superior intellect, I guess you've got my drift.

Cheers!


[edit on 4-1-2009 by mikesingh]

The difference between a 'scientific theory' and a day to day theory (hunch, feeling, gut instinct etc)...

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled. In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions.

In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be. Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

Source for above and a reasonable explanation for what a theory is...

Mike, it was your threads on The Living Moon that originally brought me to read ATS. Probably, quite a few more than me have joined to read some of your threads. I even signed up recently, so I could join in on some of the threads. Your enthusiasm and belief in what you put forward makes it very interesting. On this thread, I think you've lost the battle. It doesn't matter because you can 're-group' and fight another day

You've always come across as a gentleman. Don't let losing a battle get you involved in a thread war. I personally don't always see the structures that you see in some of the photos, nevertheless I look forward to seeing them. Who else would take the time?

Every scientist has to defend his castle from hostile forces forever! I'm not sure if a single Theory out there doesn't have someone pulling it apart and offering a new explanation. It's the meaning of science. Keep your chin up!



Without Phage, Internos and the other field experts and challengers, it would just be a barrage of photos without question. It would be like hanging out on a bad 'paranormal' thread all day whilst everyone nods their heads in agreement. Place wouldn't be the same without them. They add spice and substance.

Edited to show that it's not about choosing sides, but choosing the best evidence

[edit on 4-1-2009 by Kandinsky]

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Edited to show that it's not about choosing sides, but choosing the best evidence

On that note... stop in here

Fossils on Mars - A Collection of Evidence
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Kandinsky
It's called 24 Hours of Chaos. It describes and illustrates how the Moon came into being due to the collision of another body.

don't let the Nibiru crowd get wind of THIS one... we will never here the end of it...