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

*** ATTENTION ****


This BS stops now.

Discuss the Topic, not each other.

NO PROFANITY FROM ANYONE.

Originally posted by ziggystar60
reply to post by Iblis Smiley

 

The only reason I reposted some of bigfatfurrytexan's answer was that I thougt you perhaps had missed it, since the discussion was getting rather... heated.
I was not attacking you in any way, I tried to stick to the topic, which was your question about the rectangular "walls".

I am sorry if you feel insulted by my post, it was not my intention.
Sigh...

Have a Happy New Year anyway.

Not insulted at all. I was just so saddend by the lack of originality in attacking me. Two posts were 99% quotes of a previous quote. That just seemed a little intellectually lazy to me.

Anyway, this living moon page - well, I have to be honest. It just gives me yet another question but I will get to that. The 'walled compound" (and yes I understand that is just a name but my points on it all stand) almost has 3 sides. I can see what looks like two sides of a rectangle but in order to make it so, I have to use a huge shadow to make the fourth "wall" and as such, the actual shape and size of the third one. There is no descernable rectangle there. That shadow covers whatever shape the bottom right corner really is.

I know this is going to make so many of my fans here groan but the rest of the pics just look like they should look to me. I am really looking for what they want me too but I cannot make out a thing. I also cannot help but think of what the "face on mars" really turned out to look like with different shadows and higher resolution. A great deal of 'details' went away.

So the question this page brings me to now is this.

Every now and then we get lucky and the censors actually miss something...

OK. These censors know there job is to cover up things on the moon so that we do not see them. This means that they must know what they are censoring. Since they are given that knowledge, why wouldn't they then be directed to the very specific locations they are to be covering up in each and every photo? Does that seem plausible that they were given that photo and did a crappy job and just handed it back to the boss and he said "OK" and it was good? I work in advertising and you have no idea how many people check and recheck everything before it even gets close to the door. So I have to imagine there is more than the artist and his boss involved here. Besides, rocket scientists do not always make good artists and vice versa. Why would they all miss this if they know exactly what they are looking for and where to look for it?

I really hope this post can be taken in the spirit of discussion. Notice I did not use the "g" word or any of the worse language I received back. I have been trying to just speak to the topic for some time now. I really hope some others can move on and get over one word and consider my questions as genuine and not someone with an agenda.

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley
OK I went through those links. I will admit, I did not spend very long. If there is something credible somewhere on that page, please point it out more specifically because at the moment, all I see is a messy web page. Maybe it is just hard to navigate so I will wait and see what I missed.

It seems unfair for someone to spend hours searching and compiling information, and then placing this information on a webpage, only to have someone admit to not putting much effort into reading it and then asking to have it spoon fed. The answers to your questions are, for the most part, there. I only ask for a small amount of effort to read it all and then ask for clarification for what you don't understand. Please indulge, or understand that I really don't wish to find it point for point. Zorgon has, as well as myself and many others, been there done that extensively enough that it has become somewhat tiresome. I really don't mean to sound rude or snotty, and apologize that it likely seems that way.

-I did ask, however, how anyone would know that the emails or pdf files are legit. That they came from los alamos is my answer? That just leads to more questions. How do you know where they came from for sure and how does that really back up the validity. How do you know the emails are legit?

The .pdf's from LANL...i am one of the people who has found some of them. Most others i have read from their site. I get emails from Zorgon somewhat frequently when he finds something new, and he provides me the link so that i can read it myself and provide my input. I am certain that i am not the only one that he does this with (and he isn't the only person i seek input from). But that does account for how i KNOW that the source of a .pdf is what he says it is. If you doubt it, in most cases you can still find the .pdf file listed with LANL. Go search it yourself. You will find it. You surely must understand that it is a bad idea to link to it directly, as it calls attention to the material and has often, in the past, made said information "vanish" (as it is no longer "hidden in plain sight").

RE: email communication....mostly, i trust Zorgon. He is a good man, and i believe in him as a person. However, there has been a few pieces of information that have been provided to him via email contacts that I cannot imagine he would have found without them providing him a pointer. It sort of proves to me that he has recieved the contact from the individual(s) (that is, if i needed proof....he has never once shown himself to be dishonest).

You must remember, no one here is making money off of what we do. There is nothing to gain for any of us. This is just our hobby. Some (such as Zorgon, who we will discuss since you had brought it up) spend considerable money from their own pocket just so that they can share the information they find. It is a considerable investment of time and money, with nothing to gain from it other than knowing for yourself.

An offer has been made to share this information with you.. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink...so it is your choice.

Before you jump down my throat for not blindly falling in line, I am just asking. I am trying to find out just what it is that has made so many people believe that shadows are elaborate mining facilities. I see that asking for a convincing photo is apparently not a good idea so I need to look at the rest of the evidence and like I already said...

People believe that there are mining facilities because John Lear started presenting information stating that they were there (in Copernicus). I, myself, did not believe it and thought he was a charlatan. I believe Zorgon has stated the same, as well.

Then I started to see information that supported what Lear was saying. DoD papers on "In Situ Resource Utilization", for example, discussing how to make use of what was already on the moon to set up operations.

Still, at that point it only looked like it was a plan, or a future possibility. That is, until the email that Zorgon recieved pretty much stated that these "future plans" were a current reality, and that they were only referred to as "future plans" because admitting that it was currently being done would violate international law and treaties.

So, I dug deeper, as has just about everyone else. The picture has started to sharpen considerably. To the point that there is now no doubt in my mind. I understand that you have doubt. To help you with your doubt, i have provided you with a considerable library of information that covers, for the most part, the information. It may not be arranged to your liking....but it is there. And you will continue to doubt, at least until you have given it a reasonable shot and read through the material.

Look at this page, at least:

www.thelivingmoon.com...

See how the US Gov has decided to "cloak" ground based equipment here on Earth, and then consider how it may be done on the moon:




Ask yourself if mining could be set up using smaller operations, with automated systems (as has been hinted at by the previously discussed email sources):



Remember, some of the contribution for the above information comes from Keith Laney, the same guy who is responsible for processing the Mars images. We are not talking about quacks....there are reputable people who are researching this stuff.

Next, ask yourself what purpose the Aquila Cargo Transport serves, if we are not delivering heavy equipment/supplies:

www.thelivingmoon.com...

It should be noted that "Starcraft Boosters" is a company owned by none other than Buzz Aldrin. The same Buzz Aldrin who is on the Board of Directors for Gravwave, LLC. Gravwave, LLC is the company owned by Dr. Robert Baker (the US most eminent researcher of gravitional wave technology, and US ARL "headhunter" who found Dr. Ning Li, the groundbreaking gravitational researcher who went missing, only to show up in China recently) and is currently in full production with the Chinese government. It should also be noted that Buzz Aldrin claims that the next peple on the moon will speak Chinese.

It all ties together. There is a HUGE painting being shown to you. Just look at it. Analyze it, each part individually. If you still don't believe, then fine. But there is no need for continued requests for information, as you are being shown all that there is, that I am aware of.

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley

I know this is going to make so many of my fans here groan but the rest of the pics just look like they should look to me. I am really looking for what they want me too but I cannot make out a thing. I also cannot help but think of what the "face on mars" really turned out to look like with different shadows and higher resolution. A great deal of 'details' went away.

The face on Mars is another topic altogether. I make no claim for that. But i would caution against throwing the baby out with the bath water.

So the question this page brings me to now is this.

Every now and then we get lucky and the censors actually miss something...

OK. These censors know there job is to cover up things on the moon so that we do not see them. This means that they must know what they are censoring. Since they are given that knowledge, why wouldn't they then be directed to the very specific locations they are to be covering up in each and every photo? Does that seem plausible that they were given that photo and did a crappy job and just handed it back to the boss and he said "OK" and it was good? I work in advertising and you have no idea how many people check and recheck everything before it even gets close to the door. So I have to imagine there is more than the artist and his boss involved here. Besides, rocket scientists do not always make good artists and vice versa. Why would they all miss this if they know exactly what they are looking for and where to look for it?

The "censors" are, at least recently (since Clementine) done electronically. It is an algorithm that alters the image before being recieved by NASA. This is done by the DoD, using software developed at LANL. Don't ask me where i got this info from, but you can trust that it is honest and true. I doubt you will, as you are skeptical....but i can at least ask.

The reason that there is software making the alterations is because so many non-DoD people are processing the images (Arizona State University, Keith Laney, NASA, etc). But if you ever look at the Clementine images, you must ask yourself why the resolution on them is so much worse than what we got decades before from Apollo. Why current technology is not as good as it was back then, using the Hasselblad 70mm. Often it looks like a false gridlike pattern was laid down, as the software used to alter the images was still in a "test run" phase.

I will admit, the last two sentences of the above paragraph do not represent the findings of the Pegasus group, but rather my own opinions (which are supported by others, such as the marsanomoly folks).

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Hello. I just can't understand why you try to justify yourself to any member on this topic. If anything it adds up to a kind of weight on you having to explain yourself over and over.

We know about the moon and its obvious artifacts, NASA lies, and ET existence by our keen eye and faith within ourselves. Don't bother wasting your enormous volume of information on certain people. Instead c an I ask you just to continue discussing the artifacts, such as the domes on the moon. Much more productive.

Hey now did you check out the video link I put up a few pages back, would love to know what you think about that one!

Thanks, and keep on truckin' your input is awesome mate.

wZn

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


The one that this still image was culled from by Singh?




That is a pretty good image. I am unsure about domes on the moon, however, as it just doesn't seem to match what seems logical. That is, however, given that we would be responsible for the domes. If it were alien, or ancient human, in origin that is another story altogether.

What concerns me is the radiation shielding. How would the domes account for keeping the radiation out from under? What are they made of? Glass seems to be almost impossible....would it be more of a geodesic structure, with camoflauge covering it? That seems possible.

Regardless, the video/image are solid stuff and very thought provoking. I would be interested to see any DoD dcuments that discuss planning for such endeavors.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Wowzers! Nice screen grab... to me that is a dome, see through too!

Imagine what went on up there/and still is going on up there with these kind of constructions. Thanks for the pic (again).

wZn

Just one more question to throw out here:

Why would craters on the moon be "classified"? If that is such the case?

Surely IF there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to classify.

wZn

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


any examples of classified craters?

Edit: stupid typo. Who woulda thunk it with a one line post.

[edit on 31-12-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply to post by internos


Internos, what other bodies in the solar system have the rilles seen on the moon? Off the top of my head, the only other one i can think of might be Mars. Europa has its strange surface, but they are not exactly rilles like on the surface of Luna.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

It seems unfair for someone to spend hours searching and compiling information, and then placing this information on a webpage, only to have someone admit to not putting much effort into reading it and then asking to have it spoon fed. The answers to your questions are, for the most part, there. I only ask for a small amount of effort to read it all and then ask for clarification for what you don't understand. Please indulge, or understand that I really don't wish to find it point for point. Zorgon has, as well as myself and many others, been there done that extensively enough that it has become somewhat tiresome. I really don't mean to sound rude or snotty, and apologize that it likely seems that way.

Does it really seem unfair? Did you see what you linked me to? It was a huge list of all kinds of things from this topic to all kinds of unrelated stuff. If there was something about the moon in there that you wanted me to see, it only makes sense that you would have at least narrowed it down for me. The web page is so poorly organized that navigating it to find things that I had to assume are the things I am supposed to be reading was well, pointless.

The .pdf's from LANL...i am one of the people who has found some of them. Most others i have read from their site. I get emails from Zorgon somewhat frequently when he finds something new, and he provides me the link so that i can read it myself and provide my input. I am certain that i am not the only one that he does this with (and he isn't the only person i seek input from). But that does account for how i KNOW that the source of a .pdf is what he says it is. If you doubt it, in most cases you can still find the .pdf file listed with LANL. Go search it yourself. You will find it. You surely must understand that it is a bad idea to link to it directly, as it calls attention to the material and has often, in the past, made said information "vanish" (as it is no longer "hidden in plain sight").

You use far too many words to say almost nothing. So you know the pdfs are true because they are on the LANL website but you cannot link to it because then it will go away? Did I get that right? I have to ask for a link because I cannot find any pdfs about mining or structures on the moon there.

RE: email communication....mostly, i trust Zorgon. He is a good man, and i believe in him as a person. However, there has been a few pieces of information that have been provided to him via email contacts that I cannot imagine he would have found without them providing him a pointer. It sort of proves to me that he has recieved the contact from the individual(s) (that is, if i needed proof....he has never once shown himself to be dishonest).

OK, then you believe me about the dragon in my garage right? So far, I have never lied to you. Following your logic, anything I might say in the future must be assumed true. Interesting but I just cannot get myself to bend reality in such a way.

You must remember, no one here is making money off of what we do. There is nothing to gain for any of us. This is just our hobby. Some (such as Zorgon, who we will discuss since you had brought it up) spend considerable money from their own pocket just so that they can share the information they find. It is a considerable investment of time and money, with nothing to gain from it other than knowing for yourself.

An offer has been made to share this information with you.. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink...so it is your choice.

Right, I have been offered so much info. Let me review for a moment what I have been offered - pages of personal attacks because of a word choice and a couple of links to the same messy web page that has so much other junk on it that I have no idea where I am supposed to be looking. I guess if I am the horse, I do not see this water. I have just been kicked a lot and told that the water is there, somewhere.

People believe that there are mining facilities because John Lear started presenting information stating that they were there (in Copernicus). I, myself, did not believe it and thought he was a charlatan. I believe Zorgon has stated the same, as well.

Then I started to see information that supported what Lear was saying. DoD papers on "In Situ Resource Utilization", for example, discussing how to make use of what was already on the moon to set up operations.

Plans on how something might be accomplished and statements as to the purpose of accomplishing them is far from evidence any of it happend. Go to any company with inhouse R & D. You will find far more plans for crazy stuff that is never going to happen than you will find documentation on the things that are real. I just do not see why you would be convinced that this is happening in the face of the actual logistics of it.

Still, at that point it only looked like it was a plan, or a future possibility. That is, until the email that Zorgon recieved pretty much stated that these "future plans" were a current reality, and that they were only referred to as "future plans" because admitting that it was currently being done would violate international law and treaties.

Right, and we are back to this again. How do you or zorgon know that this email is worth believing? Seriously, an email does not seem like much proof of anything when I have several here from the prince of nigeria and yet somehow, I have my doubts about them.

So, I dug deeper, as has just about everyone else. The picture has started to sharpen considerably. To the point that there is now no doubt in my mind. I understand that you have doubt. To help you with your doubt, i have provided you with a considerable library of information that covers, for the most part, the information. It may not be arranged to your liking....but it is there. And you will continue to doubt, at least until you have given it a reasonable shot and read through the material.

How about a page that is about this topic. Maybe you need to go back and check the links you gave me before again because apparently you think there is a wealth of info about mining on the moon when I had trouble even finding where they began to mention that.

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Just found this:
www.disclose.tv...

go to 8:40 minutes and you will see a glass dome as clear as day.

This video is amazing.

wZn

[edit on 30-12-2008 by watchZEITGEISTnow]

i've lost more than 13 minutes in my life watching "green horses on the walls". Clear as day.
I think Pareidolia may became soon another form of art (or is allready but i not knowing). No offence at all, please forgive, but is really a sophisticated version of playing games when i was in "nursery school", and putting some colored drops of water colour onto a sheet of paper, bending and press it, then finding butterflies, faces or other shapes.

One think to know: if what you see is lacking in information, because blurred, not-familiar, interpolated (added false information where there is not), color or contrast distorted, etc, then the brain will try to find a match in his database (experience), and this is what pareidolia is. Like in an optical recognition software, when, in case of illegibile writings, software just try to match the "unknown sign" with something in his database, and put the wrong letter.

Your "glass dome" is a crater. The glass apearance is "manufacturated" by increasing contrast, telling you "look! the glass! and then letting you pareidolizing the image. Yes, magic. I smell con-man work.

Maybe if i put the corrected orientated more natural version, (180 degree rotatiton), when indeed the nasa module survey the terrain in normal orientation as we can expect, then maybe is easy to you to see that well shaped crater. If not, wonder to the magic of glass.



[edit on 1/1/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 1/1/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Look at this page, at least:

www.thelivingmoon.com...

See how the US Gov has decided to "cloak" ground based equipment here on Earth, and then consider how it may be done on the moon:

Ask yourself if mining could be set up using smaller operations, with automated systems (as has been hinted at by the previously discussed email sources):

Remember, some of the contribution for the above information comes from Keith Laney, the same guy who is responsible for processing the Mars images. We are not talking about quacks....there are reputable people who are researching this stuff.

I have seen this page before. It claims that because we have camo here, we must be using it to hide mines on the moon. I have a dvd player here on earth, does that mean there must be dvd players on the mood too? I do not get the logic there. Especially when you say that they have auto-censors anyway. Is it all camoflouged and censored and yet sometimes the censors fail just when the camo falls off? That is some crazy timing.

As for Keith Laney, I do not personally know him so I have no reason to trust him any more than anyone else. Please do not make me give examples of highly repudable people telling bald faced lies.

sk yourself what purpose the Aquila Cargo Transport serves, if we are not delivering heavy equipment/supplies:

It should be noted that "Starcraft Boosters" is a company owned by none other than Buzz Aldrin. The same Buzz Aldrin who is on the Board of Directors for Gravwave, LLC. Gravwave, LLC is the company owned by Dr. Robert Baker (the US most eminent researcher of gravitional wave technology, and US ARL "headhunter" who found Dr. Ning Li, the groundbreaking gravitational researcher who went missing, only to show up in China recently) and is currently in full production with the Chinese government. It should also be noted that Buzz Aldrin claims that the next peple on the moon will speak Chinese.

It all ties together. There is a HUGE painting being shown to you. Just look at it. Analyze it, each part individually. If you still don't believe, then fine. But there is no need for continued requests for information, as you are being shown all that there is, that I am aware of.

I am not sure why you think you are offering this wealth of information. Please re read this thread and see where I have asked 3 questions twice each before I even got a vague answer. This thread is not nearly as informative as you seem to think it is.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Thanks Internos and Mike, gee wiz there is plenty of photos and information about the moon, it's quite overwhelming!

Those tracks are pretty weird, has anyone tried to scale the size of them at all?
(I noticed you mention they're wider than the Russian rover)

Hi Chad! These tracks could not have been made either by the Lunakhod or the Rover which had a track width of about 160 cm (4 ft 11 in).

As calculated by SPreston in my thread on Uncensored NASA Moon Images, these 'tracks' seem to be around 20 feet broad, (about 6 meters) which is a reasonable width and not something that is hundreds of feet wide which will preclude the assumption of the 'track' theory.

The mystery deepens! Well there are just four options that emerge:

1. Man made - were we on the Moon in the early 50s? Possible.

2. ET made - Likely, but not impossible. We know next to zilch of what might have or is happening on the Moon!

3. Glitch in the pic - doesn't seem so.

4. Geological feature - Most unlikely considering the geometrics of the 'tracks'.

So now since option 3 and 4 can be ruled out, that means they are either man made or made by ETs. Now proving either is impossible! At least for now!

internos had rightly mentioned that these could be rills. However do keep in mind that the latter are geological formations that are hundreds of meters in width and not parallel throughout. Phage mentions natural 'geological lava tube' formations.

Darned if I know for sure as I ain't a geologist!

Cheers!

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The face on Mars is another topic altogether. I make no claim for that. But i would caution against throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I never claimed you did but again you missed my point. I thought I was being as clear as I could be. I was talking about how people were so certain as to the topography of that mound for so long. We 'knew' from photos just exactly what shape it was right? Ooops, turns out that it looks nothing like the blurry pics we had been so sure of. Get what I am saying yet?

The "censors" are, at least recently (since Clementine) done electronically. It is an algorithm that alters the image before being recieved by NASA. This is done by the DoD, using software developed at LANL. Don't ask me where i got this info from, but you can trust that it is honest and true. I doubt you will, as you are skeptical....but i can at least ask.

Somehow I get the feeling that people are going to complain about me asking this all too pertinent question but....why should I trust you? I know nothing of you and you refuse to even hint as to how you would know, so why would I or anyone else just trust that. Mainly because I know that no such algorithm exists. There is no software capable of doing what you are claiming anywhere. "Don't ask me where i got this info from, but you can trust that it is honest and true"

The reason that there is software making the alterations is because so many non-DoD people are processing the images (Arizona State University, Keith Laney, NASA, etc). But if you ever look at the Clementine images, you must ask yourself why the resolution on them is so much worse than what we got decades before from Apollo. Why current technology is not as good as it was back then, using the Hasselblad 70mm. Often it looks like a false gridlike pattern was laid down, as the software used to alter the images was still in a "test run" phase.

I will admit, the last two sentences of the above paragraph do not represent the findings of the Pegasus group, but rather my own opinions (which are supported by others, such as the marsanomoly folks).

So are these opinions or facts because you just told me that I can believe this is honest and true?

Are you starting to see what my issue here is? I have said ok, I will bite. Let's say these are buildings. Let's say they are mining operations. OK, then there must be a real world logic behind that right? So why have you all avoided the questions about that like the plague? It is nice to claim that I am being given all kinds of info but in reality I have asked a few simple questions over and over, and now over again to no avail.

P.S. BFT, I got applause for a post on this thread as well so I guess either one of yours is worthless, or my posts are not as bad as you are trying to make them out to seem. Thanks in advance for putting an end to pointless links and just addressing the few little questions I have asked about the logistics involved here.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by Iblis Smiley]

Regarding those tracks...

Originally posted by Kandinsky

I thought they were unlikely to be artificial for another reason. Admittedly, not geological reasons, just psychology. Anyone that's ever driven or rode down a dirt path/country lane will aim to avoid the rocks and the holes. The tracks in the images run straight. If the tracks are alleged to be artificial (man-made) they would reflect human behavior and weave.

Yes, indeed, this is a good reason. All those tracks don't care about relief bumpings. Because they are not tracks?

Now second image:

it can be seen, that that obligue track, is again a double one. But how it is posibble that the lower line is darker and accentuated all the way, but different that the upper more subtle line? May I suggest that the wheels from one side of the "car" are not inflated anymore? Or the "vehicle tracks" are not tracks?

The third one:


Now there are at least 3 other paralel tracks marked with arrows.

But, look in the bottom-left marked detail. The side wheels of the "vehicle" distance one from each other? and dissapear ? How is this posible? Maybe they are not tracks?

-----

Originally posted by mikesingh
Darned if I know for sure as I ain't a geologist!

You made it clear! This is one big problem: you are not a geologist.

Originally posted by mikesingh

The mystery deepens! Well there are just four options that emerge:

1. Man made - were we on the Moon in the early 50s? Possible.

2. ET made - Likely, but not impossible. We know next to zilch of what might have or is happening on the Moon!

3. Glitch in the pic - doesn't seem so.

4. Geological feature - Most unlikely considering the geometrics of the 'tracks'.

So now since option 3 and 4 can be ruled out, that means they are either man made or made by ETs. Now proving either is impossible! At least for now!

internos had rightly mentioned that these could be rills. However do keep in mind that the latter are geological formations that are hundreds of meters in width and not parallel throughout. Phage mentions natural 'geological lava tube' formations

Since you are not a geologist, then why rule out option 4 ?
And why assume that those geological formation mentioned by Phage, are only hundreds of meter in size, and it cannot exist some other much smaller? Are you a geologist?

Anyway, I think those "tracks" are just "glitches in the pics", scratches from the physical-mechanical-chemical proces of obtainig the images on film. You can see another signs of proces contamination, like that hair-filament on the upper-left of the image.


[edit on 1/1/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 1/1/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by depthoffield
"4. Geological feature - Most unlikely considering the geometrics of the 'tracks'."

Since you are not a geologist, then why rule out option 4 ?
And why assume that those geological formation mentioned by Phage, are only hundreds of meter in size, and it cannot exist some other much smaller? Are you a geologist?

As I mentioned a couple of times earlier, do I need to repeat I ain't a geologist? But remember, even an expert geologist would not know the geological processes on the Moon. As of now we know NIX! Can you point to someone who is an expert and knows all the answers on the Moon's geological history? You cannot because there is none! What we know is just pure conjecture as of now, using known Earth templates for trying to reach probable conclusions of the processes on other bodies in space, including the Moon.

Anyway, I think those "tracks" are just "glitches in the pics", scratches from the physical-mechanical-chemical proces of obtainig the images on film. You can see another signs of proces contamination, like that hair-filament on the upper-left of the image.

That's a probability that cannot be completely discounted, until you catch up on your knowledge of how the images from the Lunar Orbiter were processed in the first place. If you knew, you'd probably change your mind!

Process contamination is clearly seen in hundreds of LO images but these 'tracks' don't conform to the usual 'glitches'. These are seen in only a couple of images. If they were what you say they are, then this type of glitch would have been seen in hundreds of other images too, just like the other photographic anomalies seen in the LO pics.

Food for thought, what?

Cheers!



[edit on 1-1-2009 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by mikesingh
As I mentioned a couple of times earlier, do I need to repeat I ain't a geologist? But remember, even an expert geologist would not know the geological processes on the Moon. As of now we know NIX! Can you point to someone who is an expert and knows all the answers on the Moon's geological history?

Thats the point: you are not geologist, not to mention moon geologist, but easy assume they are not geological structures, and they are only big in size. Niet.
The real geologist not rule out so easy like you do, the geological explanation.
Anyway, i think those are glitches only. Because paralel tracks made by an vehicle cannot be vehicle tracks as i said before. Much probable are glitches. And Much much more probable than ET factor. (and i believe in ET existing too, i assure you)

That's a probability that cannot be completely discounted, until you catch up on your knowledge of how the images from the Lunar Orbiter were processed in the first place. If you knew, you'd probably change your mind!
Process contamination is clearly seen in hundreds of LO images but these 'tracks' don't conform to the usual 'glitches'. These are seen in only a couple of images. If they were what you say they are, then this type of glitch would have been seen in hundreds of other images too,

Assume again? That the same type of unusual glitches must have repeat many times? (but wait, the conspirative guys continue to scrutinize avery bit of image, so maybe ..who knows?)There are always usual glitches, but unusual too. It's a hazard situation. You know all the posible glitches? There are not existing unusual glithces, but only usual ones?

[edit on 1/1/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 1/1/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by internos

 

Internos, what other bodies in the solar system have the rilles seen on the moon? Off the top of my head, the only other one i can think of might be Mars. Europa has its strange surface, but they are not exactly rilles like on the surface of Luna.

Venus and Mars are the ones that come to mind: but their origins are thought to be very different and anyway not studied in some conclusive way. In the case of Venusian sinuous rilles, for example, studies indicate that thermal erosion played a role in their formation, despite their general morphology is not very different from the lunar ones.

Venus: Ovda Regio
Image Copyright © by Calvin J. Hamilton

Sinuous rilles emanate from depressions and enlarged fractures south of Ovda Regio. They become progressively narrower and more shallow in the downstream direction. They are typically 1 to 2 kilometers (.6 to 1.2 miles) wide and tens to hundreds of kilometers in length. Channel walls form a distinct boundary between the channel floor and the surrounding terrain. Channel material is similar to that of the surrounding terrain. An impact crater about 12 kilometers (7.5 miles) in diameter has disrupted the eastern channel at center right.

www.solarviews.com...

See
A THERMAL EROSION ORIGIN FOR VENUSIAN SINUOUS RILLES
S. Oshigami, N. Namiki, and G. Komatsu, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Kyushu University ([email protected], [email protected]), International Research School of Planetary Sciences, Universita’ d’Annunzio.

([email protected])

www.lpi.usra.edu...

This is a study based on the reconstruction of 9 venusian sinuous rilles using a radar-clinometric method, worthy to be read.
Venus is also characterized by the presence of Valley Networks, classified as rectangular, labyrinthic and pitted, or irregular, see

Valley networks on Venus
by Goro Komatsua, Virginia C. Gulick and Victor R. Baker
/8hhhsp

Valley networks on Venus were discovered by the Magellan mission in the early 1990's (Baker et al., 1992). The Magellan spacecraft acquired SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) images of venusian surfaces at a spatial resolution range of about 100 m per pixel. This discovery was really unexpected on a dry planet with extremely high ambient temperatures (~500°C). The venusian valley networks are structurally controlled, as indicated by the morphological patterns of valley branches, consistency between valley and fracture orientations, and associations with the deformed terrains. However, the morphologies resemble those of terrestrial and martian sapping valleys.

Valleys are manifestations of conveyance of fluids on planetary bodies. They are widely distributed on Earth and Mars, where liquid water is considered to be the dominant agent in forming these landforms. How then, did valley networks on dry Venus form?

A possible origin of valley networks on Venus involves volcanism (Komatsu et al., 2001). They probably formed initially from fracture systems and became enlarged by low viscosity lava flows - a processes named "lava sapping." Subsurface flow of lava may have locally been assisted by surface flows. The lavas probably moved through permeable media and fractures. Venusian valley networks have a higher degree of network integration than do lunar sinuous rilles, but they are less integrated than martian and terrestrial sapping valleys. The viscosity of
valley-forming lavas must have been very low, but was not low enough to exploit the permeable media so extensively as to attain a high degree of network integration. A lot more work has to be done to understand the origin(s) of these valley networks on Venus. But their discovery itself has already excited the soul of geomorphologists.

Image and caption contributed by Dr. Goro Komatsu

www.psi.edu...

/8hhhsp


Linear faults on Mars are fairly commmon. This image shows a set of parallel faults; along one is a chain of pit craters (surface material sinks into the fractures). Some have interpreted this alignment and association with fresh-looking normal faults as a sign of recent movement in the martian crust, causing "marsquakes" as a consequence:



This is what you would see if flying over the Valles (canyon). The image is made by combining a Viking view with MOLA data; there is no vertical exaggeration.
NOTE: looks familiar?

www.fas.org...

There's also to notice that the appearance of some martian channels is very similar to the one of earthly dry rivers.

There are also some moons characterized by features that could be called rilles: i don't know them all, but
Saturn's Moon Titan,

www.thunderbolts.info...

Jupiter's moon Europa, with its looping (cycloidal) rilles




... and straight ones


www.thunderbolts.info...


But as we can see, despite their appearance is similar, in many cases their origin is totally different: in many cases, like the LO images, also the poor quality plays a role:
poor quality = lack of details
lack of details = lines that appear to be straight while they could actually be very irregular ones.

__________________________
Now, to keep on looking at lunar orbiter III images while are available Clementine ones, does NOT make much sense
And why have the natural formations (in this case rilles) to be ruled out "because they are straight"? Straight rilles do are straight, otherwise they would have been called "twisted rilles" or "crazy rilles" or something like that, rrrrright?
The very same coordinates of the straight lines that can be seen in LO images show rilles: it would have been very easy to see: just a click on the link i've provided to the Clem-UVVIS Multispectral Mosaic, already centered to the relevant coordinates, this one
/7b2hm5

They show the SAME point (centered image), and i see rilles while i don't see any track: you don't need a rocket scientist, all that you need are your own eyes
I really don't understand why are narrow depression to be ruled out, i don't have a clue of some serious reason to rule them out, honestly: to rule them out with zero corroborating reasons, is like to close the eyes or to turn the head and to look at something else It would be like to claim that craters are artificial because they are "too rounded to be natural formations". I think they are rilles and i've provided a link to the highest resolution images available from the same area, which show rilles: now i look forward to see what will be provided in order to rule them out, it shouldn't be too difficult to do since the coordinates are known.
And yes, there are also hairs/fibers/glitches and stuff like that in those scans, btw, it was obvius IMHO, but given the circumstances, it's better to point it out...


[edit on 1/1/2009 by internos]

reply to post by internos


Great presentation, Internos.

The rilles we see on the other terrestrial bodies, to me, bear little resemblance to the ones we see on the moon.

It is somewhat obvious that the ones from Mars are either from liquid flow, or (in the case of that one particular image with the crater chain) fault lines.

Europa, in my opinion, is a completely different mechanism and i don't believe that we currently understand it. I DO think that it is highly likely that the immense gravitational tug-o-war has caused the cycloidal rilles (BTW, it seems obvious that the cases where Thunderbolts.info, one of my favorite sites, claims electrical influence are false).

The rilles seen on Venus, however, are intriguing. I believe that the "low-viscosity lava flows" are a good example of what might be behind that.

Thanks for sharing that. I am going to go back and read through the rest of the links.