Chandrayaan 1 detects moon base

reply to post by observe50


Thanx I'm not offended by any means by them. And If they criticize me. Well thats not illegal but liberal . But I know that there is more around us then War poverty, destruction , and try the fear alive.. Discoveries embrace the creative minds to find more that some of us just not want to see.

For those who wants to debunk everything that alienates of this world.
The admission for MIB has stopped recruiting civilians due to depletion on the crisis budged ! so you can all go home now

reply to post by fleabit


I think something is really strange if you look at point the tubes of that building are really symmetrical if you don't see that than thats strange it overall looks like building to me?

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Simply because its always the same and i still wait for PROOF that it is dust, why should we be the only side to provide proof ?

Sorry guys i cant believe this is a moonbase. It looks like rocks and craters. I would find it interesting if there was more square shaped things on the moon. If you are making a claim its ruins you cant argue its not just rocks either.

Originally posted by Fedge
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

 

Simply because its always the same and i still wait for PROOF that it is dust, why should we be the only side to provide proof ?

Because we have close-up pictures of the moon, and Mars rocks, and we know what they are. The fantastic claim is that it's ancient ruins of some type. Fantastic claims require proof. You hardly need to prove a rock or dust is a rock or dust... we already know for a fact this is there in abundance.

It's like the "face" on Mars. I asked "Why in the world would someone make a face pointing upwards? Do we do that with our monuments? Was Mount Rushmore pointed up? Why just a face... not a person? Seemed ludicrous. And then later, they come up with much higher resolution pictures which proved without a doubt, it was just shadows and formations creating this effect. There was no face. But look at how many people insisted it was based on a photo.

A single photo can easily deceive.

How about that "Mars base" picture posted on this site. It had near-perfect circles, straight lines, it looked "exactly" like a base people said. Then... a picture was posted of the same location from a different direction, and it was revealed to be simply another ridge formation, nothing more. Another case of people being sure they had found a base that turned out to be nothing at all.

So yea... you sort of need to prove it's a base beyond a single picture, because that's hardly iron-clad proof.

Observer1 : good job indeed . Didn't get time till now to go on sources but will do and revert asap if I can find anything more ...
Where are you in Europe ? Some of us are european here on ats, but few it seem, I wonder why ?

reply to post by fleabit

It's like the "face" on Mars. I asked "Why in the world would someone make a face pointing upwards? Do we do that with our monuments? Was Mount Rushmore pointed up?

Well maybe mound Rushmore didn't but the people on Nazca Peru did. And the pyramids in Egypt refer to the skies and shall i go on ?

[edit on 11/02/2007 by 0bserver1]

reply to post by conar


Thnx great video I like George Noory and coast to coast great radio casting

I did some measuring. But I'm No math wonder can someone calculate for me what size possible could be ?

The first orbit reduction manoeuvre was carried out successfully on 9 November at 20:03 hrs IST. Thus the spacecraft was in lunar orbit with 200 km periselene. The aposelene remains unchanged (i.e 7,502 km).

these are the distances the pictures were taken.

I did some numbering for references.

it has be huge

[edit on 11/02/2007 by 0bserver1]

[edit on 11/02/2007 by 0bserver1]

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Guys, your human. And guess what, humans suffer from Pareidolia

Hey, don't forget Positive bias! Been there, done that on occasion.

~MG

Originally posted by Fedge
I still wait for PROOF that it is dust, why should we be the only side to provide proof?

Moon dust is common / non-controversial. Moon bases are not.

Those making controversial claims need to support them with more than blurry images of craters, rocks and dust. Burden of proof is a bit higher for controversial claims than those everyone agrees on. Sorry, just the way it is.

One might also point to Ockham's razor. More or less "the simplest answer is preferable" or "don't posit additional assumptions or entities unnecessarily when a simpler answer will suffice."

~MG

[edit on 27-10-2009 by mgmirkin]

Originally posted by Fedge
ok i am BORED of all the douchebags answering that its just dust, its just rock etc. GO AWAY some people would like to discuss what they want together without getting annoyed by pretentious and high self esteem people.

You seem to have a rather personal / emotional stake in all this. Sorry if pointing out REASONABLE alternatives to the overly complicated claims made in this thread offends you. Perhaps it's time for you to take a step back and evaluate things objectively?

Originally posted by Fedge
...we got it thats just dust so now move on.

Obviously NOT, if you're still claiming that blurry images of craters, rocks and dust are not in fact blurry images of craters, rocks and dust... Wishful thinking aside.

Again, dust and rocks are well-known to exist on the moon, as are craters, shadows, ridges and other geological formations.

Moon bases, however, are not.

If you wish to claim they are, then the burden of proof is on you, the claimant, not us. Support your case, and stop asking us to "disprove it."

Do we ask you to disprove that peeing unicorns are responsible for emitting rainbows from their naughty bits, else it must be taken as a valid hypothesis? Methinks not.

Sorry to rain on your parade so bluntly. Nothing personal. There's just way too many people on this site taking way too little evidence and making way too grandiose of claims about it. Generally claims not supportable based on the scant evidence at hand but nonetheless taken at face value by the uninformed or the gullible.

~MG

[edit on 27-10-2009 by mgmirkin]

reply to post by mgmirkin


It looks like that you are all in the wrong forum you should try psychological forums maybe you could benefit a lot of people with your findings.

reply to post by mgmirkin

There's just way too many people on this site taking way too little evidence and making way too grandiose of claims about it.

Not just this site.

I've been thru this before. I've gone over these kinds of pics and saw things that could have been man made.

To those that think this is real, pick another crater and look for things. You'll find them. All you are doing is assigning meaning to something you think you see. That is not proof.

The thread title is deceptive

[edit on 27/10/09 by PSUSA]

I found a moon base in my mashed 'taters yesterday.

Week before.....they was in my grits.

Originally posted by 0bserver1

But thats just It .. What would you do If you had to disguise yourself in front of other beings and to research some planet?? and don't want to attract beings from that planet to see you ? ... Yes you would blend in with surrounding surface.At the closest and safest place you can find Like our soldiers do when they want to infiltrate some base..

Pardon me for sticking my oar into your conversation. But you've made a ton of assumptions. You're assuming first of all that aliens would care about disguising themselves. Second that they would even build on a planet to research it. Third that they wouldn't just make the base invisible, or underground. Lastly you assume that the aliens would be incompetent enough to disguise themselves so poorly that a mere human like yourself would be able to see through it.

With those assumptions you can call any rock you like a moon base :/

Originally posted by Fromabove
It's going to be hard to deny this one. You don't even have to try hard to make out the outlines and structural remains.

Trust me, it will be very easy for someone to debunk this. Now, that being said, it looks like SOMETHING different than natural formations, I agree with that. But to say that it will be hard to deny is silly. NASA's typical crappy resolution and other factors make this impossible to tell one way or the other. Skeptics will need irrefutable evidence, not a blurry picture that could be anything.

But to the OP: Do not get discouraged, this is still a good find, we just don't know what it is. I believe the key to bringing folks around to believing there are things on the moon and mars they never imagined is destroying NASA's official standing on them. If we can show people the pictures of liquid water on Mars that Marsanomalyresearch.com has, and show them that many of the photos are blanketed with imagery tricks, then they may begin to question WHY NASA feels the need to hide or cover certain parts of pictures.

reply to post by Enigma Publius


The image is not from NASA.

reply to post by Phage


right you are sir. I didn't notice or think about that at all.
oops.

anyway though, I still got my point across.

How far off the Moon's surface was the craft taking these pics and how much magnification from the camera?
I have seen satellite pics of some areas of Earth that look pretty desolate and you can't tell that there are buildings or even vegetation there. But there actually is.
Only in densly populated areas do the angles of the streets become obvious. Makes me wonder if they have sort of juggles the published pics a bit.

Now then on one of the pics I believe ref as Point "D"...it is definitly a right angle construction. Any of them being in ruins would explain uneven edges. That light in the crater is highly interesting...like the light of that crater on the Moon's "navel". Don't remember its name.

Hubble tooks pics when they dropped that "bomb" on the Moon...so why can't Hubble give us a lot of high quality pics that would be of hig magnification? It can sure get good images of formations that are light years away.