Lunar surface objects in plain sight.

reply to post by Druscilla
[more

I do not think I can totally agree with you when you say 'no spaceships or parts of spaceships'.

I found the feature shown below high up in the Peruvian Andes when I was researching Markawasi looking for anthropological features carved in rocks or set in the landscape. Now it is quite possible that yourself and other members may dismiss the feature as being nothing more than an unusual geological feature but it does have a striking resemblance to the large needle-shaped spacecraft shape found on the moon that has been the topic of many discussions on ATS.

Have a look at the images below and ask yourself if there is a possibility that the shape may possibly be the hull of an ancient space machine. If so, how old could it be? As far as I know no scientific research has been carried in this isolated area as the elevation above sea level is around 15,000 feet.














Imaging courtesy of Google Earth.

I would just like to ask members posting in this thread why many of them find it so hard to believe that there are structures on the moon, obviously I have no special information but it just seems like the obvious thing the militaries of the more capable countries would setup bases on the moon.

Without looking through images of the surface trying to find these structures and ignoring the possibility of ET structures.Could someone please give me some reasons why this wouldn't be done. The only reason I can think of is the cost, but when you look at the budgets of the largest militaries of the world (not even including black projects) it seems like a small price to pay for the next step in military control, and its not like they are using the money to feed the world.

Seeing as there is no proof of said bases, I do not 'believe' it to be the case, having said that I would be extremely surprised if there wasn't, the military doesn't even disclose the locations of domestic bases, so they would never admit to off planet bases, for good reason.

Originally posted by zacroyce
I would just like to ask members posting in this thread why many of them find it so hard to believe that there are structures on the moon, obviously I have no special information but it just seems like the obvious thing the militaries of the more capable countries would setup bases on the moon.

Without looking through images of the surface trying to find these structures and ignoring the possibility of ET structures.Could someone please give me some reasons why this wouldn't be done. The only reason I can think of is the cost, but when you look at the budgets of the largest militaries of the world (not even including black projects) it seems like a small price to pay for the next step in military control, and its not like they are using the money to feed the world.

Seeing as there is no proof of said bases, I do not 'believe' it to be the case, having said that I would be extremely surprised if there wasn't, the military doesn't even disclose the locations of domestic bases, so they would never admit to off planet bases, for good reason.

That's certainly reasonable. Starred. I don't doubt that our black budgets and militaristic thinkers are capable of such projects should they deem them advantageous.

In the meantime, we get a bunch of pics from various posters that truly don't seem--for the most part--any different than common geological features. Many of them requiring a GREAT amount of imagination just to "see."

Like I said, though, you make intelligent and thought-worthy considerations. I look forward to seeing you around the boards.

reply to post by eriktheawful

The fact that most people don't see it doesn't mean anything. Something doesn't become true or untrue by majority rule.
The way i see it is that the people that post on ATS are looking for likeminded people. They already know that most people don't see it the way they do.

reply to post by The GUT


I have also seen a few threads similar to this before, and while they are interesting (looking at other planets always is), it will never be more than speculation until better images present themselves, and even then an image isn't conclusive proof. That doesn't mean there isn't anything there, but arguing the case with little evidence makes it more of a religious exercise than an investigative one.

Thanks for the positive reply.

www.youtube.com...
Worth listening too and not unrelated.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Don't believe everything you hear or see but use your own discretion it is related as were do any structures actually come from.

Originally posted by zacroyce
I would just like to ask members posting in this thread why many of them find it so hard to believe that there are structures on the moon, obviously I have no special information but it just seems like the obvious thing the militaries of the more capable countries would setup bases on the moon.

Without looking through images of the surface trying to find these structures and ignoring the possibility of ET structures.Could someone please give me some reasons why this wouldn't be done. The only reason I can think of is the cost, but when you look at the budgets of the largest militaries of the world (not even including black projects) it seems like a small price to pay for the next step in military control, and its not like they are using the money to feed the world.

Seeing as there is no proof of said bases, I do not 'believe' it to be the case, having said that I would be extremely surprised if there wasn't, the military doesn't even disclose the locations of domestic bases, so they would never admit to off planet bases, for good reason.

First you have to sit down and think of what advantages there are of having said base or bases on the moon would be. As you said, it would cost, not just money, but supplies, manpower and equipment.

What would be it's purpose? What military advantages (if any) would it afford?

Many people assume that it would be an obvious military advantage because it would afford those that have them there the "higher ground" so to speak. But if we look at that, you'll see that it doesn't always mean an advantage:

Average distance from the moon: about 250,000 miles
Orbital period: 27.32 days
Gravity: 0.164 earth G

Any base there that is a weapons platform would suffer from several problems:

1) Travel time from the moon to the earth is measured in days.
2) Much more complex targeting.
3) more energy needed to accelerate a weapon such as a missile out of the moon's gravity, compared to freefall.

Weapons platform located in LEO (Low Earth Orbit):

Average distance from surface of the Earth: 100 to 200 miles
Orbital period: measured in hours
Gravity: 0

Having weapons platforms in LEO would be much better as you could deliver said weapons in hours to their targets, your platform is orbiting the earth close so it orbits it much faster and can move over targets much faster, and the platform would be in free fall so you would have to use much less fuel to accelerate it away.

However, it is possible for surface and air weapons to be used against LEO targets. But there is still another option:

Geosynchronous Orbit Platform.

Average distance from surface of the Earth: 22,000 miles
Orbital Period: stays stationary over one area of the Earth, can place over where you intend your targets.
Gravity: 0

This puts the platforms much further away and out of reach of most surface weapons from Earth. Time to target would still be in hours, not days like it would be from the moon, and again, it would still be in free fall.

So using the moon as a base for any kind of weapons attack against someone here on the Earth doesn't make any sense, as there would be plenty of warning and time to intercept said weapon since it would take days to get here.

What other military advantage would a base on the moon have? The only one I can think of would be if it where an occupying force, wanting others to keep off of it. Even then, that would be a very big cost drain to any nation trying to maintain such an occupying force......one that could be removed with ease with a few well placed nukes (what nukes? That flash of light? Must have been a meteor impact you saw.).

The only way it would be an advantage would be if we had technology a lot more advanced than we have now in weapons and space flight, and only because we have space fleets and occupying forces against each other out there, or are fighting off an alien menace.

And yes, I know, there are many people on here that do believe that last paragraph up here.

reply to post by arianna


Interesting, whatever it is has crash landed or shallow impacted with enough force and mass to smash through that ridge, the v shape at the front could be were it has either been buried (if it is not part of the object) or were it has skipped off, is there any more impact like formation in the same general direction as the impact scar, even if that was a meteor it would be of great scientific value, great find and shows an attention to detail that is rare.
You definitely have an impact of some kind (so it had to come from the sky), not the circular crater variety but something that may have been missed, it is possible that whatever it was is buried in the unusual shaped mound.

Keep an eye on this site as if you have found it and they missed it then it will only be a matter of time before someone is dispatched on a recover or destroy mission.
Though it may just be a meteor, the delta like piling at the head of the impact is interesting and may suggest something of the shaped of the object and the furrow behind it looks quite deep.
Now there is somewhere crying out for GPR and full site survey.

Originally posted by pinobot
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

The fact that most people don't see it doesn't mean anything. Something doesn't become true or untrue by majority rule.
The way i see it is that the people that post on ATS are looking for likeminded people. They already know that most people don't see it the way they do.

Sorry, but it still doesn't change the following facts:

1) This a public forum and people are allowed to post their opinions, thoughts, and evidence as long as it does not violate the TCs

2) This is ATS and not GLP, where you are not forced to agree with the OP, can post in the negative or debunk things without fear of being banned.

And my subjective opinion on the mater is:

Reading threads where only those that agree or say "yes I see it!" would be some of the most boring threads I'd ever read.

However if you were a excessively (Ridiculously) well funded secret state body that had access to rail gun launch systems near oh lets say Nevada and you wanted to hide something that you did not want to or could not bury then the dark side of the moon would have proven ideal but not anymore as there are other nations with orbital probes such as the ESA and Russia so the thought is moot.

reply to post by zacroyce

I would just like to ask members posting in this thread why many of them find it so hard to believe that there are structures on the moon

I don't find it hard to believe there could be structures on the Moon I just haven't seen any direct evidence of them yet , as an idea it makes sense to assume that if an Alien civilization has or is visiting this planet they may want to do it from the comfort of the Moon .

Professor Paul Davies of the Arizona State University thinks so too ...

Two researchers at Arizona State University (ASU) have made a rather controversial proposal: have the public and other researchers study the high-resolution photographs of the Moon already being taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), to look for anomalies that may possibly be evidence of artifacts leftover from previous alien visitation. The theory is that if our solar system had been visited in the past, the Moon would have made an ideal base from which to study the Earth

Yes, the chances of finding anything are very small, maybe even nonexistent in the opinion of some, but if we have the images being taken anyway, and the willingness of some to study them, then why not? If nothing is found, no harm done. It something was found, well that’s another story entirely…
www.universetoday.com...

But there is a difference between wanting something to be there and finding something there , with most of the "I've found something on Moon / Mars " threads people seem to convince themselves into seeing stuff that either isn't there or has a perfectly natural explanation , show me evidence not magic eye pictures .

reply to post by eriktheawful


I understand your position but i'm not here to be entertained.

Original picture

My picture.

reply to post by gortex


Good post but some of use are not looking for bright shiny new looking alien domes with flying saucers, we are looking at formations that may be not natural and may be ancient in origin or I am at least.
Still it is a matter of the eye of the beholder and if you don't behold then enough said but we each see differently,
like when you are hiding in plain sight in your camouflage, some one may miss you but then again there is always the one whom will say what's that funny man doing dressed as a shrub in my field in the Brecon beacons and where has my bicycle gone from my shed ( you may know the story - points for improvisation but only the once ).
I for one have never tried to force my opinion but it is so annoying when someone else whom has not really looked says, nah nothing there.
Would it not be polite to say In my opinion I do not see anything sorry but then the power of the first few posts is not to be denied as later thread readers look at the extant posts and judge the post as much by the comments as by the information provided.
Peace.

reply to post by pinobot


You have seen this one haven't you, it is the expedition from rather than the catalogue image and has less airbrushing and image tampering, look at the near front leg.
files.abovetopsecret.com...
You know the front of that, remember the intro to the six million dollar man, look a little familiar, could it have been a return vehicle fallen off over time.

Remember them wind up toys called Zoids from the 80's.

reply to post by LABTECH767

I for one have never tried to force my opinion but it is so annoying when someone else whom has not really looked says, nah nothing there.

Just because I didn't see what I was supposed to see doesn't mean I didn't look , I'm an experienced looker with time served searching every picture that came back from Spirit and Opportunity for a couple of years and yes I found interesting stuff , was it evidence of anything ? , probably not but it kept me amused .

Would it not be polite to say In my opinion I do not see anything sorry

My first post was polite and a statement of fact , "I see nothing unusual in the picture , its the Lunar landscape " I don't see why I should apologise for not seeing what the OP sees , I can sugar coat it as much as you like but I don't see it ... not even when squinting

I see what the OP is pointing out but there are striations all over the surface and to me it looks like another example of that .

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by Druscilla
[more

Have a look at the images below and ask yourself if there is a possibility that the shape may possibly be the hull of an ancient space machine. If so, how old could it be? As far as I know no scientific research has been carried in this isolated area as the elevation above sea level is around 15,000 feet.

First; how much Geology do you have?
It's an honest question. I'm not asking as means to belittle or insult you.
How much Geology do you have? Do you have even the slightest understanding behind the geological mechanisms that went into the formation of the Andes mountains?

Do you understand how geologically active that area IS?
Do you have any understanding of the earthquakes and volcanic activity in the Andes?
Would you even know how to spot or look for RECENT geological deformation, uplift, folding, erosion, faulting compared to older features?

Is there a possibility what you claim to see is the hull of a spaceship or the outline of one buried?
NO.

Some advice; BEFORE you start looking at maps, especially here on Earth, but really, anywhere, study up on the local geology, why it's there, what processes formed it, the chemistry of the rocks and what the differences are between igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary, what features these over time might create through natural processes of erosion, and most importantly what rocks look like.
If you don't know the difference between what a rock and something artificial looks like, how are you even going to know what something artificial looks like when you see it, unless, say, it has flashing lights and a sign on it?

Just look at ancient earthworks and megalithic sites famous in the area for a comparison of artificial vs. natural.

**ATTENTION**

This thread is being watched closely by the staff and any off-topic, rude or inflamatory remarks will be removed. We ask that you please review the following threads:

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Courtesy is Mandatory – Please Review Link.

UFO Forum READ BEFORE Posting **02/18/2007 UPDATE***

YOU are responsible for your own posts.

No other warnings will be given before removal of posts and potential loss of posting privileges occurs.

Thank You

Blaine91555
Forum Moderator

Of course, I could be completely incorrect in my analysis but I will leave it for you to judge whether these objects are structures or not.

Analysis? Exactly what is your analysis based on? What scientific grounds?

I wouldn't call the OP an analysis. At all. Just a wishful observation, and as others have stated, pareidolia.

I see rocks. The surface of the moon.

Originally posted by Liquesence

Of course, I could be completely incorrect in my analysis but I will leave it for you to judge whether these objects are structures or not.

Analysis? Exactly what is your analysis based on? What scientific grounds?

I wouldn't call the OP an analysis. At all. Just a wishful observation, and as others have stated, pareidolia.

I see rocks. The surface of the moon.

edit on 21-7-2013 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)

There are no rocks on the moon.

Originally posted by pinobot
There are no rocks on the moon.

Brilliant. Another example of why Wikipedia shouldn't be your first stop.

Moon Rocks