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

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Well, your picture perfectly demonstrates why I use words like garbage. There is nothing there. You see a walled compound. I see random shapes in the rocky surface. I say garbage because I see pictures of lens flares and rock formations and am asked to at least consider they are something else. Why? Why must that be a walled compound to you? Why does it not look like rocks to you?

Nevermind all that even. Let's say it is. Now what? Are you trying to claim that there is a civilization there that only built this one compound? Are you saying maybe they have a few random compounds but mostly dead empty rock between them? Are you saying humans went there and built a walled fort? This is why I say garbage. I get a picture of an empty planet and them am asked to believe that logic would even dictate the possibility, neccesity, or reality of such a 'building?' Sorry but I just need to see something that is not so easily interpreted by many.

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Well, your picture perfectly demonstrates why I use words like garbage. There is nothing there. You see a walled compound. I see random shapes in the rocky surface. I say garbage because I see pictures of lens flares and rock formations and am asked to at least consider they are something else. Why? Why must that be a walled compound to you? Why does it not look like rocks to you?

Nevermind all that even. Let's say it is. Now what? Are you trying to claim that there is a civilization there that only built this one compound? Are you saying maybe they have a few random compounds but mostly dead empty rock between them? Are you saying humans went there and built a walled fort? This is why I say garbage. I get a picture of an empty planet and them am asked to believe that logic would even dictate the possibility, neccesity, or reality of such a 'building?' Sorry but I just need to see something that is not so easily interpreted by many.

If you insist on calling evidence put forth as "garbage", then you likely are not on the correct forum. That is a word that is inflammatory, and serves no purpose. What it WILL do is make people question who you are, and what you motives are. There seems to be a steady supply of people who refuse to budge an inch, and it seems like an agenda when it is done.

I say "walled compound" because that is what others have called it. I "see" something there because there is a rectilinear formation that is not normally found in nature.

It appears that you are in the "just rocks" crowd. So, in order to keep you from repeating yourself over and over you should just be quiet and from now on i will assume that your comment is always, "It is just rocks". That will keep needless posting from occuring on this board.

That is, unless you would like to point out (graphically) why you think it is just rocks (perhaps finding a natural formation that looks similar to that elsewhere on the moon, or any other dead planet surface)?

You see, it takes a little effort to present evidence. It takes no effort at all to insist there is nothing there, and it doesn't require you to put forth any evidence of your own.

[edit on 30-12-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

There are many ways to express some opinion. I, for example, call garbage the whole Apollo 20 story because it's a CONFIRMED hoax and because it tried to cast some bad light on the whole apollo program: now, THAT is garbage. It also can be called garbage the huge amout of photos coming from some websites which manipulate systematically images from Mars and the Moon in order to get some geometrical shape to pass as some sign of civilization: that is PURE garbage.
But the last image, posted by bigfatfurrytexan, is worthy to be discussed to say the least, also because it's an untouched one: of course it could turn out to be some natural formation, perhaps crater ejecta, perhaps a part of the crater's central peak, somewhat deformed by the perspective, but this has to be proven by providing, for example, more images from the same area. Of course, NOT by sitting there and calling it "garbage".
It adds nothing to the discussion and subtracts nothing to the value of the image.

Iblis Smiley: I am not one of those who try to pass some rock as some alien base on the Moon, if you know me: but it's a mistake, in my humble opinion, to generalize that way: for example, in a scale from 0 to 5, the image in the op would deserve an 1, while the image posted by bigfatfurrytexan would deserve a 3: you can make your point the same, even if you don't use the terms that you know are not appreciated by your fella members courtesy is mandatory, and it's free

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

I would be curious to hear an explanation about how there could be such a rectilinear formation as the apparent "walled compound" in the above image. BTW, that image was cropped directly from a NASA photo (as provided to me by ArMaP). No funny business, other than to increase the size of the image by doubling it, and putting a red square around it. No further filters were applied in any form.

If that isn't evidence enough, then there isn't much i can do for you. You want "proof", of which there is none. Only "evidence". The Clementine photo sets are "evidence" enough for most rational folks. Not saying you are irrational....but perhaps unable to discern between the terms "evidence" and "proof"?

I think Bigfatfurrytexan you give way too much credit to people who sell pareidolia, from "websites which manipulate systematically images from Mars and the Moon in order to get some geometrical shape to pass as some sign of civilization: that is PURE garbage. " as well described by Internos.

You sais:

I say "walled compound" because that is what others have called it. I "see" something there because there is a rectilinear formation that is not normally found in nature.

Pareidolia, this is why you are wrong and see "evidence" where in fact is no evidence.

I searched for you some "misterious" "unnatural" "alien evidence":

picfu.com...

picfu.com...


annotations are my "contribution".

images taken from lpod.wikispaces.com...

It's easy to be subjective when looking only at what some people speculates.

So, i think you should not repeat "there is evidence" where is only low resolution pareidolia-favorizing images.






[edit on 30/12/08 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield


Terms like "pareidolia" seem to be a cheap out for denial.

I see what i see. Now, there are times i get another image from another angle that may or may not refute what i have seen before. I am a reasonable man, you know...so that is my judgement i apply.

But what you provide is like an apple to my orange. Firstly, scale. The "walled compound" is not a planetary sized image. It is farily close up, and would represent the size of something that would be similar here on earth. Secondly, there are FOUR lines positioned in a way that appear to be forming a rectangle.

What you have shown me is that you can pick out random straight lines (which can be seen on any planetary surface). Further, what you are calling "tracks" are obviously on a scale that would make it nearly impossible for it to be tracks. A reasonable mind would not call them such.

However, on the second image you link to (the one of Aristarchus), do you see how the small "foothills" are laid out in a roughly rectangle shape. Can you find a parellel to that on Earth, or any other planetary body?

I am familiar with the second image. Aristarchus is enigmatic, partially due to what i mention above.

I am not a proponent of Occams razor, as i feel it is a lazy investigative tool. I don't want to assume anything, i want PROOF. There is an anomoly...and i don't know what it is. I can say what it looks like, but until i have further evidence i certainly cannot dismiss it as "pareidolia". Remember, "pareidolia" is an assumption, where as the rectangle seen in the above image is, by every definition, evidence (even if it needs further investigation, which is what we are all screaming for anyway).

Lastly, one "rectilinear" line means nothing. Four of them, all positioned in a rectangle...that is something worthy of further investigation.



[edit on 30-12-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Not even the image from a crater near Tsiolkovsky:

Any indication where exactly near Tsiolkovsky this is? I generally find that a lot of these interesting features tend to "vanish" when another view or a higher resolution image is located. I understand that Apollo 15 did some good photographic work of the crater and around it. Just wondering if there is a better image of it. This one is admittedly pretty fuzzy.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


But what you provide is like an apple to my orange. Firstly, scale. The "walled compound" is not a planetary sized image. It is farily close up, and would represent the size of something that would be similar here on earth. Secondly, there are FOUR lines positioned in a way that appear to be forming a rectangle.

What you have shown me is that you can pick out random straight lines (which can be seen on any planetary surface). Further, what you are calling "tracks" are obviously on a scale that would make it nearly impossible for it to be tracks. A reasonable mind would not call them such.

the arbitrary pattern of soil/terrain details is something in the domain of fractals. You can find same characteristics on a big scale, and in a small scale. Someone can find apparently strange unnatural patterns in allmost every soil/terrain shot with enough details, but 99% of the time is only pareidolia. What makes special Moon or Mars images is the conspiracy juice that impregnates them, the "star" attribute. Nobody tries to find "domes" "entrances" piramids, rectangulars in the picture of some ordinary wild terrain from here or there, but when looking at Mars, Moon etc, all the amateur non-specialists eyes are scrutinising them and find "misteries". Not a problem in finding misteries, but a big problem when somebody says: look! evidence of alien activity, where in fact is much more informational attributes to get until well defining a particular anomaly. Like the Face on Mars legend

[edit on 30/12/08 by depthoffield]

[edit on 30/12/08 by depthoffield]

[edit on 30/12/08 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Not even the image from a crater near Tsiolkovsky:

Any indication where exactly near Tsiolkovsky this is? I generally find that a lot of these interesting features tend to "vanish" when another view or a higher resolution image is located. I understand that Apollo 15 did some good photographic work of the crater and around it. Just wondering if there is a better image of it. This one is admittedly pretty fuzzy.

I will need to dig for awhile to find it. If ArMaP comes through, he knows where to find it, as he was the one that showed me where to find it (the last time i discussed that particular image).

I may even be mistaken about it being Tsiolkovsky. i have seen so many images that i can't keep track.

I have a serious question, is there a telescope I can buy that is strong enough to see the surface of the moon? I understand that the early missions supposedly left stuff up there and wonder if it can be seen from earth? Then I'll believe we landed on the moon.

reply to post by Nohup


The image is AS11-41-6156, here is a direct link (NASA source). The image shows "View of area west of Crater 308 from lunar orbit":
www.hq.nasa.gov...

I found the structure a little bit left of the center of the image, here I have done nothing else than crop the photo:

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I will need to dig for awhile to find it. If ArMaP comes through, he knows where to find it, as he was the one that showed me where to find it (the last time i discussed that particular image).

I may even be mistaken about it being Tsiolkovsky. i have seen so many images that i can't keep track.

I know the feeling. Tsiolkovsky does have a lot of rectilinear features around it, though, I assume either from impact or lava upwelling compression (or both). So it could be from that neighborhood.

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


But what you provide is like an apple to my orange. Firstly, scale. The "walled compound" is not a planetary sized image. It is farily close up, and would represent the size of something that would be similar here on earth. Secondly, there are FOUR lines positioned in a way that appear to be forming a rectangle.

What you have shown me is that you can pick out random straight lines (which can be seen on any planetary surface). Further, what you are calling "tracks" are obviously on a scale that would make it nearly impossible for it to be tracks. A reasonable mind would not call them such.

the arbitrary pattern of soil/terrain details is something in the domain of fractals. You can find same characteristics on a big scale, and in a small scale. Someone can find apparently strange unnatural patterns in allmost every soil/terrain shot with enough details, but 99% of the time is only pareidolia. What makes special Moon or Mars images is the conspiracy juice that impregnates them, the "star" attribute. Nobody tries to find "domes" "entrances" piramids, rectangulars in the picture of some ordinary wild terrain from here or there, but when looking at Mars, Moon etc, all the amateur non-specialists eyes are scrutinising them and find "misteries". Not a problem in finding misteries, but a big problem when somebody says: look! evidence of alien activity, where in fact is much more informational attributes to get until well defining a particular anomaly. Like the Face on Mars legend

[edit on 30/12/08 by depthoffield]

[edit on 30/12/08 by depthoffield]

[edit on 30/12/08 by depthoffield]

You should tell that to our Armed Forces. They used the same technique's to decide where to drop bombs in Germany. They seemed fairly successful with it, might i add...we DID win that war.

reply to post by Nohup


Ziggy provided it above. I believe crater 308 is Daedalus? That crater, as well as Tsiolkovsky, has some interesting terrain around it.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Yes, the crater is Daedalus:

Daedalus is a prominent crater located near the center of the far side of the Moon. The inner wall is terraced, and there is a cluster of central peaks on the relatively flat floor. Because of its location (shielded from radio emissions from the Earth), it has been proposed as the site of a future giant radio telescope, which would be scooped out of the crater itself, much like the Arecibo radio telescope, but on a vastly larger scale.

The crater is named for Daedalus of Greek myth. It is pictured in famous photographs taken by the Apollo 11 astronauts. In contemporary sources it was called "Crater 308" (this was a temporary IAU designation that preceded the establishment of far-side lunar nomenclature).

For some reason I can't get the link to work properly, but you can search for "Daedalus crater" at Wikipedia and find the info there.



[edit on 30/12/08 by ziggystar60]

ok, just some thoughts..

I've cropped the original NASA image, and annotate some things.




sorry not knowing yet how to show directly the image.


The "east", south... are assumed in relation to the shot only.

The sunlight came from right (east)

Obviously, the "E" crater is a crater. The shadow on the right side, the brightened wall on the left side.

Of course, "C" and "D" are smaller craters themselvs. Shadow in the right, brightened wall in the left.

So, the same goes to "A" and "B". They are small craters, like C and D. Not elevations, but holes.

So the "east" flank of the rectangle is just an ilusion. It does not exist. There are 2 craters, and the brain assume the flank there.



The rectangle is assumed to be a rectangle. pareidolia.

the other 3 flanks may be related to different other terrain "arhitecture".
The rectangle shape is only assumed by the brain from that vantage point (camera point of view) and low resolution (lack of information)


But thinking at some ET buildings.... not yet.


[edit on 30/12/08 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by ziggystar60
reply to post by Nohup

 

The image is AS11-41-6156, here is a direct link (NASA source). The image shows "View of area west of Crater 308 from lunar orbit":
www.hq.nasa.gov...

I found the structure a little bit left of the center of the image, here I have done nothing else than crop the photo:

It's still a bit on the fuzzy side. I'll still poke around. Although anomaly hunters might have fun with this image of Daedalus and the local neighborhood. All kinds of odd things to be seen in the blow-ups.

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Right...looking for evidence. What are you smirking at? If I were not here, I would be guilty of not looking into it. Since I am here, what is it that you are saying? I am missing your point other than to mock me.

That's a valid enough point, but I think your snide and obtuse language is obscuring what you're saying. Surely you're of sufficient intellect to come up with something better than 'garbage', etc? And if you're not, then please don't get all indignant and defensive when people respond with similar language.

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by SideWynder
But thank you Mike I always do find your posts fascinating.. maybe someday you will find something so blatantly obvious that we will all just sit here and go DAMN!!!!!!

Most likely if you do, we will all just sit here and go DAMN,, Whatever happened to Mike?????? he just dissappeared........

So you wanna go DAMN??? Then just click on the link below...

Uncensored NASA Moon Images!

And my YouTube vid here...

Have yer eyes popped out yet? No? OK. Wait a little more until I show you stuff that'll make you go GODDAMN!!!

Cheers!

[edit on 29-12-2008 by mikesingh]

It's people like you that have helped me overcome my ego and mind with your insights. It's people like you that were once told the world was flat. It's people like you that help mankind as a civilization overcome the lies we have been fed since the beginning.

And it's people like you that infect the rest of us 'moonies' to investigate, challenge the official stories, and begin our own research, and then in turn spread the information amongst the sleeping masses out there.

Long live Mike and his 20-20 vision. Hats off and big up. Now you have a youtube that I've bookmakred, you best be putting LOTS of this stuff up now ya hear?

wZn

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
If you insist on calling evidence put forth as "garbage", then you likely are not on the correct forum. That is a word that is inflammatory, and serves no purpose. What it WILL do is make people question who you are, and what you motives are. There seems to be a steady supply of people who refuse to budge an inch, and it seems like an agenda when it is done.

So, to be clear...what you assume is my fault?

I say "walled compound" because that is what others have called it. I "see" something there because there is a rectilinear formation that is not normally found in nature.

It appears that you are in the "just rocks" crowd. So, in order to keep you from repeating yourself over and over you should just be quiet and from now on i will assume that your comment is always, "It is just rocks". That will keep needless posting from occuring on this board.

Look, I figure there must be some reason so many people are willing to believe these ideas. I am open to the possibilities far beyong anything I know. Unfortunately that does not make me ready to believe every picture of a shape - sort of. You can assume that I will always say jus rocks all you like but that is still your presumption. How noble of you to decide what I think and what I will say. Now I need not bother thinking or speaking for myself. Thanks.

That is, unless you would like to point out (graphically) why you think it is just rocks (perhaps finding a natural formation that looks similar to that elsewhere on the moon, or any other dead planet surface)?

Ah, I see. Because we both know that regular shapes can be found in nature all over the Earth so you leave that out of the possible choices. Nice move but it is a little dishonest to rule out the one example that will show you regular shapes found in nature.

You see, it takes a little effort to present evidence. It takes no effort at all to insist there is nothing there, and it doesn't require you to put forth any evidence of your own.

Right, that is why I asked what I thought was a question. Let me try it again. Can someone explain to me the logic of a square compound all by itself like that? See, I was trying to further this discussion by asking someone to clear up just what sense that even makes. I guess you would rather take up all that space to tell me what I think, what I will say, and where I should be. None of those are on topic though, are they?

Originally posted by longfade
That's a valid enough point, but I think your snide and obtuse language is obscuring what you're saying. Surely you're of sufficient intellect to come up with something better than 'garbage', etc? And if you're not, then please don't get all indignant and defensive when people respond with similar language.

So me calling pictures of lens flares and rocks 'garbage' is bad, but spending a couple of posts to just be rude to me is ok. I did not feel that I personally attacked anyone here. Sorry if I think that the evidence that has been presented so far is eh at best. I am so sorry that I did not come here to just agree to see what you want me to. I thought this was about an open discussion but I see now that this is really a place where people who believe these pictures show them disneyland on the moon berate anyone who does not agree. Got it!