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

Originally posted by zorgon
The two objects on the right and left are found near Tsiolkowsky Crater

Original Hi-Res image here AS15-94-12741H

I never understood how someone can think those things are on the Moon's surface, they look nothing like the other features on the Moon's surface and they look like the other features (hair, dust, etc.) on the surface of the photo.

Also, and as expected (although many people will say that it was airbrushed ), those features do not appear on different photos from the same area.

AS15-94-12741HR



AS15-M-0480



I think that there are more photos of that area, but I did not had the time to look for them, maybe tomorrow.

Originally posted by fooks
reply to post by Phage

 

one thought i have is that, a dome with an atmosphere should be fairly easy to control temp, especially when all they need to do is circulate the air through the moon. use the -150F/whatever temp, under the surface as a heat sink, scrub it on the way back in.

also domes could heat underground areas too?

Actually, near the moon's equator the subsurface temperatures (below a few meters) would be steady and comfortable without any additional heating or cooling.www.lunarpedia.org...

Large glass domes just don't make sense (other than for agriculture perhaps). The coolness factor (I don't mean temperature) is there but the practicalities are lacking. Why create problems (like getting rid of excess heat) if you don't have to? Let's not forget little problems like meteors either.

Originally posted by Phage
Large glass domes just don't make sense (other than for agriculture perhaps). The coolness factor (I don't mean temperature) is there but the practicalities are lacking. Why create problems (like getting rid of excess heat) if you don't have to? Let's not forget little problems like meteors either.

A good idea could be to take advantage of the already excisting lave tubes on the moon. They provide shelter against heat, radiation and meteor impacts, and could solve some problems regarding the lunar dust:

Lunar lava-tube traces are located near mare-highland boundaries, giving access to a variety of minerals and other resources, including steep slopes, prominent heights for local area communications and observation, large surface areas in shade, and abundant basalt plains suitable for landing sites, mass-drivers, surface transportation, regolith harvesting, and other uses.
....
Natural entrances to lava tubes are at the ends of sinuous rille collapse trenches and roof collapse skylights. Artificial access should be possible by drilling or blasting at any desired location through the roof of the lava tube.
....
Lava-tube caverns probably have extensive areas free of the abrasive and problematic dust endemic to the surfaces of the Moon and Mars.
....
Lava-tube caverns have roofs tens of meters thick (roughly 40 m on the Moon, perhaps 20 m on Mars). This makes the cave environment relatively safe from solar radiation, cosmic rays, micrometeorites, and even small macrometeorites (up to 20-m crater sustainable on the Moon). Transportation between operational and habitation sites within the lava tube is protected by the basalt shield. Stable cave temperatures (Moon est. –20° C) are less stressful on equipment than the wide diurnal swings on the surface. The cave interior could act as one pole of an oscillating heat engine, with heat transfer occurring inward during the day and outward at night.
....
The psychological value of being able to work and relax under the secure shelter of tens of meters of basalt shielding should not be underestimated. Cave-ins are unlikely in lava-tube caverns that have survived for thousands, millions, or billions of years. Of course, human activity that might provoke collapse, such as blasting or drilling, should be conducted with care. Views on the lunar surface are restricted due to the need for radiation shielding. Within the lava-tube caverns, large windows can look out on great vistas, increasing the “psychological space” of small pressurized habitats.

Read more on page 16 and 17 in this document ("WORKSHOP ON USING IN SITU RESOURCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PLANETARY OUTPOSTS"):
www.lpi.usra.edu...


[edit on 27/1/09 by ziggystar60]

wow this is an interesting photo here, any ideas what this is on the Moon ?



www.lpi.usra.edu...

reply to post by easynow


Looks like a messed up photographic flaw. The "shadows" don't make any sense and there is obvious lens flare.

reply to post by Phage


hey thanks for that hi res Phage

yea i see what your saying about the round lens flare circles but

the rest of it , no clue....what's the odds of having lens flare in the same spot as an image defect ?

airbrushing ?

reply to post by easynow


Now how did I know that airbrushing was going to come up? Could be I guess, but someone sure wasn't trying very hard if it is.

Reminds me of San Francisco in the summer.

Major outgassing? Seems we would have heard something about that.

My first thought was that the whole blob (and flare) is a result of a very bright area (similar to that in the top center area of the photo). But that's just me. I confess I haven't ever seen that sort of flaw before.

reply to post by Phage


you knew airbrush would come up because you thought about it too ! lol

no seriously, what the heck is outgassing ?


i also thought the top center ridge further up looked similar until i seen the hi res you posted. as soon as i expand that hi res it becomes apparent it's not just a bright area.... you already know this

i also can't say i have ever seen anything like this

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by zorgon
The two objects on the right and left are found near Tsiolkowsky Crater

Original Hi-Res image here AS15-94-12741H

I never understood how someone can think those things are on the Moon's surface, they look nothing like the other features on the Moon's surface and they look like the other features (hair, dust, etc.) on the surface of the photo.

Also, and as expected (although many people will say that it was airbrushed

), those features do not appear on different photos from the same area.

AS15-94-12741HR

AS15-M-0480

I think that there are more photos of that area, but I did not had the time to look for them, maybe tomorrow.

good work, Armap.

I myself began to search other photos of that area, to see the absence of the scratches. You find it. Nobody gives you stars, ( but, remarks like this "very interesting" www.abovetopsecret.com... receive it )

As i said before, they look like scratches, they have a sharpness much better than the rest of the photo (the rest of the moon surface). The same sharpness can be seen only at other processing artifacts, like hairs, linear obvious scratches, dust etc in the same photo.
More, the scan process has enough resolution so it was able to see the grain of the film (silver particles), yet those scratches has better sharpness, beyond what the grains particles can offer.
As i know from some personal experience how scratches may appear, so that's why it rings the bell for me.

So, Zorgon, i can said again:

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by zorgon

From Jack Arneson - Pegasus Researcher at Boomslanger.com Jack is ex military and an image analysist

The two objects on the right and left are found near Tsiolkowsky Crater

Original Hi-Res image here AS15-94-12741H

this is ridiculous!
Why putting scratches on the film as "evidence" for lunar "misteries"?
This has to go to the comic channel.
Are you laugh at us, Zorgon?

Also, "Jack Arneson - Pegasus Researcher at Boomslanger.com Jack is ex military and an image analysist" it is a so "good" image analyst, that he makes fool mistakes like the following, when push the pareidolia imagination of the reader but don't take care of the real light direction.

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by easynow

ventilation shaft or lookout post ?

www.boomslanger.com...

I think this example is an example of pushed pareidolia.
Beeing an extraordinary claim, it have to be much more undeniable and clear. But it isn't. More, it contains mistakes.

Here is a much more common solution:



Note: because image is truncated, see here : img177.imageshack.us...


So, it may very well be some kind of valley (downhill), not necessary circular as i draw it. It's slope (angle) may be above the angle of the sunlight, so right part of the valley is in shadow.
The ridge in the right of the image cast shadow to the left.
There, the two shadows may combine, giving the result.

This is NOT an extraordinary claim. So the anomaly may be with good probability just in our head, if we search them.

In fact, we just need more information, more pictures, from different angles, from different light angles etc.

Your image analyst are a bit a disinformation one.




So, Zorgon, you call me a blind person, a stupid one, with laughing pictures too. You failed (with stars, but you failed)


What else can i say? You should pay more attention ...


My guess after reading here of there at lunar anomalies or other quoted places, that most of the "evidences" may be just only that: forced ideas.



[edit on 27/1/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 27/1/09 by depthoffield]

maybe those other photos were taken at a different time or the pods got airbrushed out of the pictures ?

Originally posted by easynow
maybe those other photos were taken at a different time or the pods got airbrushed out of the pictures ?

Your "maybe"'s can start from not recognising how scratches appear on film, you declared yourself not beeing expert. So, it's easy for you to push every extraordinary claim like "brushing etc. More, at the same time, it helps at those conspiracy theory.
But the scrathces have their characteristics pretty obvious here. The scratches are scratches.

reply to post by depthoffield



do you have experience working with NASA on these type of photo's ?

if you do then please explain how those scratches have shadows that are in the correct direction as the rest of the picture

and yea NASA airbrushes things out also



[edit on 27-1-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Phage

 

you knew airbrush would come up because you thought about it too ! lol

No. I've been learning the way some people thing about things.

no seriously, what the heck is outgassing ?

The hypothetical release of subsurface gasses.
www.lunarpedia.org...

i also thought the top center ridge further up looked similar until i seen the hi res you posted. as soon as i expand that hi res it becomes apparent it's not just a bright area.... you already know this

i also can't say i have ever seen anything like this

I know it's a bright area. Probably caused by a comparatively recent impact.

reply to post by Phage

The hypothetical release of subsurface gasses.
www.lunarpedia.org...

thanks for the link, but look at the shape of this anomaly...
history.nasa.gov...

i would rather believe this was just an image screwup than believe the moon farted and it appeared in that shape...lol

strange is all i can say

reply to post by easynow


Like I said, the "shadows" are all wrong for the cloud to be anything, including airbrushing. Judging from the craters, the sun is nearly directly overhead. The dark areas don't line up with anything and there is nothing else in the photo that even faintly resembles them. To me this all adds up to a photographic flaw.

reply to post by Phage


well i agree with you that the sun is overhead and there would be no logical explanation for those dark patches to be shadows.

i am favoring the image flaw explanation but i still haven't ruled out the airbrush or image manipulation of somekind.
(you knew i was going to say that right ? )

i would like to think about it more and see what some others say about it just to see what the majority thinks before i make somekind of conclusion if that's even possible ?

thanks for your help, i do appreciate it

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield

 

do you have experience working with NASA on these type of photo's ?

if you do then please explain how those scratches have shadows that are in the correct direction as the rest of the picture

and yea NASA airbrushes things out also

[edit on 27-1-2009 by easynow]

typical response...
not responding to one issue, but flood with another one. You assume that NASA airbrushes, so you assume that in the case of these scratches not appearing anymore in the second photos posted by Armap is because they airbrushed there. But you DON'T KNOW how scratches may appear (but I do from some practical experience, in personal laboratories at one time, not in NASA like you ask, but you don't have it neither this personal experience), so you simply ignore the scratch appearance and talk only about the NASA airbrushing, yet where is the proof that NASA airbrushed here?!? If they airbrushed, then why didn't airbrushed the first photo? Damn incompetent people there at NASA..or not..wait, there is a program for releasing secret data to the people, so they in purpose don't airbrush the first one... (and even more, i think, they changed those "pipes" to look like scratches). LOL it is amasing how some people think they think.

It appear like scratch, it has other dirty artifacts processing on the same photo, in another photo it doesn't appear anymore, so:

a) it was a random scratch - common explanation
b) they are pipes, forget they look like scratches, the NASA airbrushed in other photos- EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM

It is like in the Obbama bird here. It is a bird! No it is not a bird! Is a UFO! Ufo's exist, so it is a UFO. then..it is a flapping UFO. The same here.


The youtube may be another subject. now what's the link to those obvious scratches here? I know: conspiracy theory itself has the power to win always. LOL.


And, do not forget, your ex-military image analyst make obvious mistakes when drawing the direction of light.




[edit on 28/1/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield

but I do from some practical experience, in personal laboratories at one time,

ok
so that i may be able to trust your judgement on photos like this and you say you have some experience...then tell me who you have worked for ?

other wise your opinion means nothing if you can't state your qualifications

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield

 

but I do from some practical experience, in personal laboratories at one time,

ok
so that i may be able to trust your judgement on photos like this and you say you have some experience...then tell me who you have worked for ?

other wise your opinion means nothing if you can't state your qualifications

No, i'm talkink from my personal experience from my personal home working in the past as a hobby.
I have not a diploma to show you.

But i think i have some knowledge, as a matter of fact i posted here on ATS some personal experiments that i think not quite anyone can do. So these may be the only "qualifications" for someone.

So, i have my reasons to believe that i am not so "blind", and discovered that your ex-military image analyst make mistakes when drawing directions of light in that pareidolia-forced "ventilation shaft or lookout post " posted before. You cannot detect that, as i saw, more, you tend to believe (to say blindly?) in that picture, so, even if i am a not a good image analyst, i am better than you. Surely it looks like self praise, but this is my reason when i said to you:

the scratches are scratches.

And there are people that speculates them. Even the ex-military image analysts may be. Don't care by their diplomas, because we don't know their real interests, so, if i detect errors, i show them. If i'm wrong, i expect someone to show where i'm wrong. But not reasons like "who are you talking" and "NASA airbrushes, so it must airbrushed THIS ONE". Not extraordinary claims we need, but argumented one right to the issue in discussion.


[edit on 28/1/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 28/1/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield

 

but I do from some practical experience, in personal laboratories at one time,

ok
so that i may be able to trust your judgement on photos like this and you say you have some experience...then tell me who you have worked for ?

other wise your opinion means nothing if you can't state your qualifications

DoF doesn't have qualifications. To dismiss his opinion as meaning nothing is very provocative. Must we all attach our CVs and Degrees to our Sigs?
The picture above clearly misinterpreted the direction of sunlight. DoF pointed it out correctly. His opinion mattered. I've seen many of DoF explanations and challenges to images on this site, he's more often than not, correct. Not many astrobiologists and quantum physicists around here yet a lot of discussion about aliens and the propulsion systems they use?! We all do it. The threads are driven and given life by opinion. Some of it's qualified; most is simple opinion.

I've read a lot of your replies Easynow and never had the sense that you are so quick to dismiss opinions that differ from yours. If only there was a 'tut tut tut' emoticon

[edit on 28-1-2009 by Kandinsky]