Moon Base Discovered With Google Moon, amazing building July 24, 2011

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Perhaps to enable real science

"real science" and NASA do not compute. REAL scientists wouldn't call Hematite nodules "Blue Berries" because they were looking at a blue berry muffin when they named them

I think that is not a dust on camera lens! If it is - than whole picture would be fogy and blurry all arround when zoomed!

reply to post by Fichorka

You think correctly. It is not dust on the lens. It is dust inside the camera, close to the film.

reply to post by zorgon


Hardly ignored Zorgon. Not everyone who reads a thread posts to it.

I'm not at all closed minded to the idea we may someday find a structure left behind by someone other than us or hidden from us. Problem is all proof offered to date I've seen is useless as proof. After all, we all pretend to be looking for truth.

When I see a title like this which clearly states a Moon Base was discovered and it in fact was not, I can't help but think it would be better if more honesty were involved in the titles. Reminds me of how the print media so often uses misleading titles. It would read Moon Base may have been discovered if honesty were the intent.

I know, you also know that many natural geological features at that resolution even on Earth can and do look similar to structures. Considering the amount of features on the Moon that are likely Basalt, to not expect them is disingenuous.

We all know you cannot prove a negative and the onus is always on the claimant to provide proof. As far as I could go and still remain honest is to say when you zoom into this area on Google Moon, to the level where the pixels become apparent, you see a structure that resembles something that could be created by intelligent life, but without further evidence has little meaning.

Even the best available photo's are still at a level where single pixels cover a large distance. That is just a fact.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Perhaps to enable real science

"real science" and NASA do not compute. REAL scientists wouldn't call Hematite nodules "Blue Berries" because they were looking at a blue berry muffin when they named them

Seems I've gotten under your collar a bit my friend Enough to drive you to a Straw Man argument. We've both been at this far to long to resort to that I think. Funny comment however and I'm smiling as I type.

As a serious response though, I do not see an issue with calling them Blue Berries. Has little to do with the debate however.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Fichorka

 

You think correctly. It is not dust on the lens. It is dust inside the camera, close to the film.

How could this be film in the camera when it is a digital? How could a piece of dust be so perfectly geometrical? zorgon has highlighted showing in the past many anomalies including mining machinery, pipes and buildings from photos Nasa had taken of the Moon. ^Y^

reply to post by amari

It isn't digital. Not the original.
The original images come from the Apollo 15 metric camera.
apollo.sese.asu.edu...

The image comes from the Apollo Image Archive at Arizona State University. It is a scan from an image taken on Apollo 15 (AS15-M-1119). You can see the speck that Google's fiddling has "enhanced", also the "horseshoe" speck to the northeast of it.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3618bb05cf24.png[/atsimg]You can get the original scan here (it's big, really big):
apollo.sese.asu.edu...

Here's the same location taken on Apollo 17 (AS17-M-0454) with much better lighting conditions.[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aad868702e29.png[/atsimg]

reply to post by Blaine91555


You call it a pixel, I call it a structure.
I stand by it.

I think Phage nailed it. I will use this thread to bring something to light that I have been noticing recently. I have viewed many of the claims of bases and/or structures on Mars and the Moon, and I realized something...If you use Google Earth, and focus on places such as deserts and places that are rocky, there are many, many straight-edged structure-looking objects that are nothing more than oddly shaped rocks or clumps of rocks/hills.

I have heard the argument that there aren't perfectly straight edges in nature etc, etc, and this is not the case as per my research. Now, I understand that the processes that are occurring on Earth, such as weathering and erosion, may not be present on other planets and our moon, but I do not find this to be a problem.

Actually, I think this offers a good explanation as to why there aren't that many of these structure-looking objects on these bodies...because they didn't have the greatest conditions to form, unlike the objects on Earth viewed from space. Mars however was likely much similar to Earth at one point, so the elements probably did get to the rocks and the ground, creating some of the objects that look unnatural. So ya, to quote Forrest Gump, "that's all I have to say about that."

Originally posted by silversurfer6161
why should I believe that?

Well, if you don't want to believe that it is a dirt spec, then what makes you believe it is something other than a dirt spec?

You must have better evidence that it isn't a dirt spec than Phage's evidence that it is, seeing that you seem to have dismissed the "dust spec" idea. If that's so, then can you please present that evidence to us?

Originally posted by Blaine91555
As a serious response though, I do not see an issue with calling them Blue Berries. Has little to do with the debate however.

"Gluons", anyone?


...And staying with sub-atomic particles, what about the "charmed quark"? The co-discoverer of the charmed quark, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sheldon Lee Glashow, explains why they used the term "charmed":

"We called our construct the 'charmed quark', for we were fascinated and pleased by the symmetry it brought to the subnuclear world."

There was also the "Truth Quark" and the "Beauty Quark", which are now the "top" and the "bottom" quark.


And then there's Mike Brown from Cal Tech. Mike is credited with discovering the dwarf Planet 'Eris' -- the discovery that prompted the expulsion of Pluto from the status of "Planet". When Mike Brown first discovered Eris, the temporarily name he gave it was "Xena", after the eponymous character on the TV show Xena: Princess Warrior.

So "real" science has a history of giving less-than-serious names to things.

phage u allways ruin it for everyone what i want to know is what cases have u studied phage that have u perplexed or on the fence?

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
So "real" science has a history of giving less-than-serious names to things.

EXACTLY my point

So why is it that Phage and other uber skeptics get so up in arms when some of us lay people give less-than-serious names to things?

Seems like a double standard to me... it's only okay to do that when you have a Ph.D.?

*facepalm*

Not ANOTHER "PROOF! Moon Base!" "MARS BASE!" "AWESOME ALIEN OUTPOST!!!111!1!1!!ELEVEN!!!" thread....

I find these threads so frustrating. I'd love for there to be outposts on Mars or the Moon - and frankly I think the likelihood of finding evidence of life outside earth (but within our solar system) is extremely high (though I don't believe such structures would be alien, but from trans-dimensional beings (think Nephilim/Angels/Demons))...

But with that said, even with my desire to see such things revealed, I can't convince myself that a blobby collection of pixels equals definitive proof of ANYTHING, much less a space station / building / outpost of any kind.

I also think it's high time people stopped turning to Google Earth for indisputable proof of alien life. It's just not happening.

My moon base is the superior moon base.

See below:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2f464ada10a2.jpg[/atsimg]

*Actually, no one knows what this thing is.

I'd love for there to be outposts on Mars or the Moon...

This is more something we say when debunking stuff than something we actually believe.

No sane person wants alien outposts or otherwise on mars or the moon.

That would be horrible. Don't love the horrible.

I ahve no doubts there are alien bases on the moon but its funny how these vids and photos are always blury and indistinct. Its stragne how these cameras used never seem to be good enough to to focus down to within just a metre or two.

reply to post by Exuberant1

*Actually, no one knows what this thing is.

And, as usual, you provide no information which might help figure it out.

Originally posted by Phage
And, as usual, you provide no information which might help figure it out.

Well he did.. in several threads I shall drag it out for you

@ Phage.

It was one of those finds that had a mysterious lack of skeptics and debunkers pouncing on it screaming its only a rock... perhaps that is why you missed it

LaCROSS Scientist Anomaly

www.thelivingmoon.com...

The rectangular anomaly..



Found on the photo under the guys arm


Image Credit: Dominic Hart / NASA Ames




Full size original is here
www.nasa.gov...

Enjoy

Originally posted by Awen24
I find these threads so frustrating.

Yet... you keep opening them

Well I have one for you... what do you think of this one? Its been around a long time, actually from before when NASA was still NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/15888ea0aca5.jpg[/atsimg]

I'll be back later with details