Gigantic structures on the front side of the moon + other 'anomalies'

reply to post by tachyonator7


As others are already discussion some of your images in this post, I'll look at these other two:

The gigantic boomerang UFO in front of the moon:



There are several problems with this image. The main one being the placement of the "shadow" that is suppose to be cast from this object on to the moon's surface:

It's in the wrong place.

Take a look at the shadows that are in the craters of the moon in that image. Based up on that, a 500 mile wide UFO (which is what this is suppose to be) would not cast it's shadow there on the surface. It would be a bit more to the right, and higher up, based upon the angles of the shadows in the craters.
The edges of the shadow would be sharp also. Not fuzzed out like that. Again, even in this photo, you can see the edges of the shadows in the craters are sharp, not fuzzy and fading out.

Another problem is the conflicting of stories. There are only two sources that I can find online (doesn't mean there are no other sources, except possibly published in books that are not available online), however, both those sources conflict each other.

This image is mentioned with a organization called A.U.F.O.A (Australian UFO Action) on their Face Book page. According to them:

On 4 June 1969 - 46 days before Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the moon - two Ballarat (in Victoria, Australia), astronomers independently took extraordinary photographs. Their pictures show an immense boomerang-shaped object looming above the lunar surface, casting a shadow kilometres in length.

This is from a book published by John Pinkney in 2003, entitled: "Great Australian Mysteries"

The only other source that can be found is from Project 1947, a web site with a complied list of Australian UFO reports starting in 1935.

In the list, is a short blurb here:

4 Jun 1969 Ballarat Vic
An amateur astronomer was taking a picture of the Moon through a 6 inch reflector telescope. Upon developing the picture a large white boomerang-shaped object appeared, casting a shadow on the Moon's surface. Several opinions have existed ranging from a hoax to a developing fault. No positive identification has been made.
(Aust UFO Report Aug 71.)

The stories conflict a little bit here (One says two astronomers, each too pictures, the other says a single amateur astronomer took a picture).

No other sources than those.

As for the other pic:

Lake On The Moon:



I can find absolutely no source for this image, other than your post.

Care to source this for us? Not just the image, but the story behind it.

tachyonator7
your "high quality 2Gb TIF version" that you use to disprove the find is in "kill me please, i'm so ugly" quality and debunks nothing..and even in this horrendous quality crop you posted, one can still discern the house. lame debunking attempt i must say.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

Yeah I think what you mean there is "it doesn't show what I want it to show". The high level of detail in that 2Gb scan shows everything in the original image - every blip and squawk in the image as beamed by FM signal from lunar orbit. The fact that you prefer a sanitised, altered and photoshopped version of the image because some of the square pixels somehow in your imagination make a sqaure house (that only you can see) says everything we need to know.

I'll repeat it again for emphasis: I have an original actual print of the photograph and a magnifying glass. There is no house.

Let's go into some more detail about this "house".

Copernicus crater was also photographed from above by Lunar Orbiter V, and the LOIRP has made a nice mosaic of the crater

sservi.nasa.gov...

I also have a copy of this image www.lpi.usra.edu...

If you look at the image you can determine quite easily that the range of mountains roughly in the centre are the central peaks of the crater, and the steep cliffs below the horizon are the northern crater wall.

Here is a zoom of the general area where the 'house' is to give some context. It is not too difficult to locate where it is.



And here is the specific hill with the 'house' on it,



No house, just some rocks poking out of the surface.

How in the hell do you see structures out of those images? Of all things to guess.... This is the moon you're talking about

And just to ram it home even further, here is the LRO's maximum zoom on the 'house'



The sun is at a completely different angle, so I've inverted my zoomed crop of the Lunar Orbiter V image to help pick it out



No house.

Now let's have a look at the pyramid.

It was rather unhelpful not to say where it was, but a good deal of careful searching I found it - just on the left hand edge of the big image and technically not on the crater floor as such, it's actually at the base of the crater wall slump features. It's directly 'above' the central peak at the left edge.

Here is a crop of the large vertical view of the general area:



and here is a zoom of where the pyramid supposedly is:



No pyramid.

reply to post by tachyonator7

This seems almost made for you. Now you can add and label those houses and towers you see.

CosmoQuest’s MoonMappers research portal invites the public to learn about the lunar surface and aid professional researchers in mapping craters and other features on the Moon.

cosmoquest.org...

nothing has been debunked, as we can see by reading through the thread. it's been a pleasure to answer to the inquires of the members, though mostly skeptical. nevertheless, we can agree to disagree, people can have different interpretations of the same object.

reply to post by draknoir2

reply to post by tachyonatorr7

Why did you make a new account?

It doesn't seem from the avatar that your other one was banned...

Though thanks for the more civil post.

You started this thread with some claims and the burden of proof is still upon you.

It is about the moon, something anyone can see and in great detail if they have good telescopes. There are also very high quality images that just don't agree with your claims.

This isn't in the Grey Area or Skunk Works.

There is still no case that there are cylinders, colosseums, artificial towers, artificial pyramids, or houses on the moon.

how do you expect to see it from that far-up vertical perspective, it would appear as a dot in that image at best. look at the original source image, it is clearly visible together with a peak and a some kind of ball on top of it. you can even see two smaller houses to the left of the pyramid.

onebigmonkey
Now let's have a look at the pyramid.

It was rather unhelpful not to say where it was, but a good deal of careful searching I found it - just on the left hand edge of the big image and technically not on the crater floor as such, it's actually at the base of the crater wall slump features. It's directly 'above' the central peak at the left edge.

Here is a crop of the large vertical view of the general area:

and here is a zoom of where the pyramid supposedly is:

No pyramid.

tachyonatorr7
how do you expect to see it from that far-up vertical perspective, it would appear as a dot in that image at best. look at the original source image, it is clearly visible together with a peak and a some kind of ball on top of it. you can even see two smaller houses to the left of the pyramid.

I zoomed in as far as was reasonable given that it is difficult to see anything that remotely resembles a pyramid. The image I used is more detailed than the one you presented. If it is clearly visible in the image you gave it should also be clearly visible in the Lunar Orbiter V photograph. It is not. My opinion is that the ground features contributing to the illusion you describe is towards the left hand side of the closest zoom I used, about half way up. it is a mound. The 'ball' on the top is not on top of anything, it's a shadow in the background.

If you think you can find it on the pictures I gave, go ahead.

You won't find it, because it isn't there.

reply to post by tachyonatorr7


Craters.

Please try to be more open to the folks who have delivered you higher resolution pictures...
They did the work for you.
Are there intelligently designed structures on the moon? Maybe.
But, they are not in the photos you posted.
Keep looking.

tachyonator7
regarding the blurriness, is it my fault we dont have accest to better resolution pictures of the moon!? this is the best from the available photos, zoomed in, angle corrected, sharpened..i did what i could to share these discoveries.

This is too funny. You take a crop of a photo on Wikipedia showing the whole face of the moon and claim it is the best resolution available?

Why are the people who claim to have knowledge of secret "structures" always the ones who know least about astrophotography? Oh wait, don't answer that...

it's interesting to hear different opinions. i find the failed debunking efforts and the prevalent disbelief here amusing. i also recommend everybody to watch the great documentary CELESTIAL. it may help you to see what you missed so far. all eyes to the skies. check out.

www.youtube.com...

tachyonattor7
it's interesting to hear different opinions. i find the failed debunking efforts and the prevalent disbelief here amusing. i also recommend everybody to watch the great documentary CELESTIAL. it may help you to see what you missed so far. all eyes to the skies. check out.

www.youtube.com...

edit on 16-3-2014 by tachyonattor7 because: (no reason given)

My doubts about your claims have nothing to do with belief - nor SHOULD they. Belief should have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there are artificial structures on the Moon.

My doubts have to do with your evidence. I see nothing in your evidence that would make me think the things you are pointing out are artificial structures. Sure, when you zoom in really close to a low-resoltion image, you are going to see some odd-looking stuff (such as what you did by using that image of the whole Moon when trying to see one very small portion of it). However, what you are seeing seems to be nothing more that image artifacts caused by the use of such low resolution images.

This becomes clear when the better resolution images are used of those same areas, because what you THOUGHT you saw in the low-res was not there in the hi-res. That's obviously an image artifact issue caused by the poor qulity of the images you are using.

Back to the idea of "belief". I say that is a problem because your "beliefs" should in no way affect how you are analyzing these images. You should do what I do and analyze them with a completely open mind - and that means have no pre-existing expectations of what your analysis may show you.

If you begin your analysis by believing that there are in fact alien structures on the moon, then of course every little odd thing you see will jump out at you as an artificial structure, and (like the fallacy you are falling into) you will tend to dismiss any other evidence (such as better images) that shows that there are no structures where you thought you saw them.

However, if you open your mind and have no pre-existing beliefs one way or the other (have your mind open enough to accept what the best evidence shows you), then you may discover the truth, rather than simply seeing something because you "believe" that something must be there.

it's seems your dis-'belief' prevents you from discerning the structures from pixelization, swamp gas, weather balloons and such. i remember the story when coloumbus first arrived to the shores of america, indiginous people were unable to see their tall ships because it was impossible for them. it's called perceptual blindness. some people are blind to unexplained phenomena because their brains simply can’t handle anything they don’t understand. i shared a link to the joe escamilla documentary Celestial that shows many of these anomalies on a level a child could understand it, so i recommend you watch it carefully before making conclusions about the subject of matter. here's the link again www.youtube.com...

Box of Rain
If you begin your analysis by believing that there are in fact alien structures on the moon, then of course every little odd thing you see will jump out at you as an artificial structure, and (like the fallacy you are falling into) you will tend to dismiss any other evidence (such as better images) that shows that there are no structures where you thought you saw them.
However, if you open your mind and have no pre-existing beliefs one way or the other (have your mind open enough to accept what the best evidence shows you), then you may discover the truth, rather than simply seeing something because you "believe" that something must be there.

tachyonattor7
it's interesting to hear different opinions. i find the failed debunking efforts and the prevalent disbelief here amusing. i also recommend everybody to watch the great documentary CELESTIAL. it may help you to see what you missed so far. all eyes to the skies. check out.

www.youtube.com...

edit on 16-3-2014 by tachyonattor7 because: (no reason given)

It's not about "belief", it's about evidence. If you zoom in far enough on just about ANY digitised image, you will find "anomalies". That's how JPEGs work!

As a real-world experiment, here's a picture of some sand.

Now, let's ENHANCE....

Hmm, what are these artificial regularly spaced structures?


Some sort of carved face here. And OMG, is that a swastika above?


And what about this? A clear square grid pattern of regularly spaced roads, with a tall building or craft casting a shadow.


Never mind the moon, the aliens are RIGHT HERE ON EARTH. And they're ABSOLUTELY TINY!

reply to post by tachyonattor7

some people are blind to unexplained phenomena because their brains simply can’t handle anything they don’t understand.

I think everyone here in this thread understands the phenomena you are pushing for others to see.

But you can't see what is simply not there.

People have mentioned pixelization, and over-active imagination, but nobody has said "swamp gas", "weather balloons", etc--but you try to blow off criticism and disagreement with derision.

And until recently with name calling and insults.

If the video you linked to is at a child's understanding, maybe the facts and science are from a child's perspective too. I used to think there were actual elves when I was a little kid--guess what there's not.

Why is it difficult to accept those are craters and shadows you are looking at?

Who do you propose made the houses, coloseums, towers, and pyramids on the airless low gravity moon??

Have you gotten that far yet?

tachyonattor7
it's seems your dis-'belief' prevents you from discerning the structures from pixelization, swamp gas, weather balloons and such.

You seem to have missed my point about "belief".

I didn't automatically DISbelieve nor do believe that there is something there. So it is not at all true that I "Disbelieved". I looked at you claims with a neutral point of view; I simply went in with a 100% open mind and let the evidence tell me whether or not something is there.

The evidence tells me that what you think you see is not really there. It has nothing to do with belief or disbelief. It has to do with facts and evidence.

If someone wants to be truly open-minded about a claim such as yours, they should not have pre-existing beliefs NOR pre-existing disbelief about the situation. When someone relies on their beliefs to tell them what they think is true, that's when the closed-mindedness starts. They try to make the evidence fit their pre-existing belief instead of letting the evidence speak for itself.

You are letting your beliefs tell you what it is that you see in those pictures, and that is being close-minded (relying on your beliefs instead of facts and evidence).

tachyonattor7
i also recommend everybody to watch the great documentary CELESTIAL. it may help you to see what you missed so far. all eyes to the skies. check out.

www.youtube.com...

edit on 16-3-2014 by tachyonattor7 because: (no reason given)

Never trust a video that makes basic errors in its first few minutes, or one that is tricksy with its use of language.

It claims to show the first full colour image of the moon from space taken in 1994 by the Galileo probe, and shows the photograph. It is an ambiguous statement, and could imply its the first photograph from space or the first by Galileo

The photograph it shows was actually taken in 1990. and is not a true colour image, it is a composite taken through a number of different filters.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

It's also not the first photograph of the moon taken by Galileo - that was done a couple of days before.

The first full colour image of the entire lunar disk taken from space was actually done by Apollo 8.

It also provides what it claims is the "first color footage of the moon taken by an amateur astronomer from his backyard telescope".

The implication from the choice of words is that this is the first time it has been done, but what it actually means is that it is the first time it has been done by this astronomer, and even that is in doubt when you listen to the astronomer speak. The colour is not real, it is a product of the camera and atmospheric distortion.

How do I know that? Because I am also a backyard astronomer who records things with a camera. Here's one I did:



It also claims that Japan, India and China have not released their colour images of the moon to the public. This is not strictly true.

India's Chandrayaan-1 probe did not carry convetional colour cameras - it was a mapping probe. Japan's Kaguya probe did have HDTV colour cameras and has released photos and video:



China's Chang'e-1 probe, like Chandrayaan, carried a stereo mapping camera, but this did not shoot colour images, although spectral information was collected. Chang'e-2 did release colour photos.

A lot of the Clementine images that are claimed to be 'full colour' are actually artificially enhanced to exaggerate any colour information - they aren't real colour.

Anyone who wants to see the moon in colour just needs to look through a telescope with their eyes, not through the artificial distorting view of a camera.

What the video does is find pictures that it thinks proves a point and then ignores, or gets wrong, those pesky inconvenient facts. It believes what it chooses to believe.