"Alien Artifacts on the Moon?" - Forbes Article Points to New Credible Crowdsourced Search for ET

There are a lot of artifacts around left by ancient civilizations or "aliens". The universe we cannot comprehend and we discover new things about it everyday just makes you think, are we alone or are there lots of aliens around us. I think that there is life out there "somewhere" but we cannot find it yet because our primitive technology doesn't allow it or they won't allow it. There is so much to learn about it that we won't find much because we will be extinct before it happens. Even when we detect "alien" signals from space, it took light years to travel which could be 4,000 to 20,000,000 light years to reach us and they could be long extinct by now. I think the same will happen to us. We send out signals to space, but by the time "aliens" will receive a signal we will be long gone by then. This is why i think that some species don't discover other species because the universe is just too big.

originally posted by: DazDaKing
a reply to: JadeStar

Interesting.

I've been more and more impressed by the power of crowd sourcing recently. It has the ability to change this absolutely upside down system we so blindly defend into our favour. Choose what we fund. You know, sort of like the original idea behind a democracy lol.

Out of curiosity, do you personally believe we have a decent chance of finding anything on the Moon? I've been researching the moon a lot recently. There's a wealth of strange anomalies about it. Even it's surface composition is bizarre. Hell, even the way it formed is beyond our understanding really.

I'd give it less than a 50/50 chance we'd find anything extraterrestrial. BUT that doesn't mean we should not search. I'm a mere undergrad and Dr. Paul Davies is a very well respected person in this field. So if he thinks we should search then who am I to argue?

My personal bias is that extraterrestrial junk is likely too small and would be buried under lunar soil over time from micrometeoroid impacts.

More and more I think the search for ET might be most successful at the nanometer scale.

one has to think about our own technological trajectory to realize that "alien probes" are likely not something the size of a house or even a garbage can but rather, tiny.

Think about it.

In just 5 decades we went from satellites this size:



to this size:



And from drones the size of the back of a pickup truck to ones this size:



What will the next 50 years bring?

There are some clues in the field of nanotechnology.

We've got machines at the nano scale, so small that you could fit one within the width of a human hair:





So if we're looking for alien probes perhaps we should not be looking for the large ships from 1950s sci-fi but rather tiny machines which can only be seen under an electron microscope and could be crawling on top of the screen you're reading right now, looking at you without you even noticing it because it is too small for human eyesight?

There's a good reason to believe this is or has gone on at some point in the Milky Way Galaxy's history.

Think of how many nanoprobes you can fit into a Pringle's can. More than the entire population of Earth!

And it is far easier to send a Pringles can across the gulf of space between the stars than something even the size of the old Space Shuttle.

Physics favors miniaturization for interstellar exploration or colonization because the faster you accelerate something the more massive it becomes so it is best to start with something small.

The galaxy could be filled with nano-scale machine intelligences and we'd not know it unless we looked very carefully. Perhaps that is the answer to the Fermi Paradox of "Where is Everybody?"

Perhaps if the singularity happens somewhere in our future we too will eventually upload our brains into computers and send out small probes like these to be our eyes and ears?

Perhaps the meek really shall inherit not only the Earth, but the Universe.

Perhaps the person who finds ET will find it not looking up, but looking down under a microscope.

Or they might find it looking at LRO imagery. Maybe there is a limit to how small you can make something that is both durable and effective? Perhaps aliens don't go down the nanotech road at all. We just don't know. So when we don't know, we look.

That's why I think it is important to go over LRO images with a fine toothed comb.

On another note, enjoy your stint with NASA. I partially did some work for them. I actually learnt a great deal about aerospace industry in that time (My Masters is in Mech. Eng but I've done numerous robotics/CEI projects).

They have some great design guides and standards. Very airtight (no pun) and professional organisation.

I'm assuming it's practically your dream job. Well done and good luck.

Thank you! I just keep my head down and learn all I can while there. One of the coolest things some students like me have been involved with is the design of a starshade to be used with future space telescopes so that we can directly image Earth-sized planets. Now THAT would be my dream job. Analysis of spectra from these planets would be fascinating!

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: uncommitted

The Romeo kilos are the ones on the moon. They also have people on mars too.

Of course they do how silly of us

BOTH groups are humans and not aliens though. ASTRO's threads. you should read them.

a reply to: JadeStar

Interesting stuff about the scale.

Reminds me of the bit from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy about the Vl'Hurgs and the G'Gugvuntts:

For thousands more years, the mighty ships tore across the empty wastes of space and finally dived screaming on to the first planet they came across, which happened to be the Earth — where, due to a terrible miscalculation of scale, the entire battle fleet was accidentally swallowed by a small dog.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: jimmyx

The Moon doesn't have a dark side !!!!!

So true, but many people don't know the moon revolves around it's axis and has days and nights but because of it synchronization to Earth we only see about 59% of the moon from Earth.
Maybe Pink Floyd shouldn't have made "Dark Side of the Moon!" and confused some folks?

a reply to: JadeStar

So if we're looking for alien probes perhaps we should not be looking for the large ships from 1950s sci-fi but rather tiny machines which can only be seen under an electron microscope and could be crawling on top of the screen you're reading right now, looking at you without you even noticing it because it is too small for human eyesight?

There's a good reason to believe this is or has gone on at some point in the Milky Way Galaxy's history.

Think of how many nanoprobes you can fit into a Pringle's can. More than the entire population of Earth!

And it is far easier to send a Pringles can across the gulf of space between the stars than something even the size of the old Space Shuttle.

Physics favors miniaturization for interstellar exploration or colonization because the faster you accelerate something the more massive it becomes so it is best to start with something small.

The galaxy could be filled with nano-scale machine intelligences and we'd not know it unless we looked very carefully. Perhaps that is the answer to the Fermi Paradox of "Where is Everybody?"

Perhaps if the singularity happens somewhere in our future we too will eventually upload our brains into computers and send out small probes like these to be our eyes and ears?

Perhaps the meek really shall inherit not only the Earth, but the Universe.

Perhaps the person who finds ET will find it not looking up, but looking down under a microscope.

Very well said.

I think that a lot of people are looking into this the wrong way when they limit their search for aliens that look humanoid. Robots or some sort of exploratory mechanism is provably the most plausible way of finding some ancient (ancient by our timeline) alien artifacts.

The robot theory actually gives some credibility to a vast amount of UFO cases, since it would clearly explain why some UFO's do the speeds and maneuvers they do. They could if they were only robots recording information.

It would also explain their weird behavior, like observing and then fleeing to the distance.

I still think that an advanced robot from an alien civilization would have some form of A.I. that would make it more intelligent, but you never know...

Being some sort of mechanical probes would also increase the possibility of finding some artifacts, like a probe that crashed or ran out of energy for some reason.

It would suck if we could only find a heat-shield or something like that. We would be like those remote tribes that saw an airplane at a distance, and made statues of it.

a reply to: wulff
The moons tidally locked. how does it rotate?

It's actually a very interesting topic that I haven't put much though into.

What makes it viable is it's age and the preservation level of items on the moon.

I don't think highlighting shadows will get us very far though.

99.99999999% of those shadows are geographic optical illusions.

I still think a moon base is the best way to go.

When we explored new worlds in the past (Americas, Australia, etc) did we hang off the coast and just view it with a pair of binoculars? Or did we get feet on the ground.

i founs this files.abovetopsecret.com...

Its funny how whereever i go to check out the spots i would imagine an alien race setting up camp(mountain rang, crater cliff, etx...) the image is ALWAYS blurred out.
Example 1 of hundreds.

http://(link tracking not allowed)/1nVo59m

originally posted by: JadeStar


In just 5 decades we went from satellites this size:

to this size:

Hardly a satellite it's a mylar balloon used to reflect radio signals so comparing it to the other picture is not really fair.

Echo, NASA's first communications satellite, was a passive spacecraft based on a balloon design created by an engineer at NASA's Langley Research Center. Made of Mylar, the satellite measured 100 feet (30 meters) in diameter. Once in orbit, residual air inside the balloon expanded, and the balloon began its task of reflecting radio transmissions from one ground station back to another. Echo 1 satellites, like this one, generated a lot of interest because they could be seen with the naked eye from the ground as they passed overhead.

Sorry but the universe is BIG enough looking for what we would consider normal size objects!

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: JadeStar


In just 5 decades we went from satellites this size:

to this size:

Hardly a satellite it's a mylar balloon used to reflect radio signals so comparing it to the other picture is not really fair.

Perhaps I should have used a picture of the much smaller Sputnik? Though those cubesats can do things that weren't even dreamt of during the days of Sputnik.....

Sorry but the universe is BIG enough looking for what we would consider normal size objects!

Sure it is. I was just pointing out an alternative to the commonly held idea that ET stuff would have to exist at our "normal" scale.

Look, there are people looking for mega-scale civilizations in distant galaxies by looking for excess IR. And there are papers on looking for nanoscale ET tech as well.

Until we find either or something in the middle, it's all fair game and we should be looking in every possible way.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: wulff
The moons tidally locked. how does it rotate?

Because it is tidally locked to the Earth!

If the moon DIDN'T rotate, then we would be able to see all sides of it as it orbited: on one side of the orbit one side would be facing us, and on the other side of the orbit the other side would be facing us.

a reply to: Arken

Uh oh, you found an abandoned cabbage patch kid farm from the 80's... I thought the secret spaceforce, nuked all these sites once they started to rebel against their slaughter and preservation for use as children's toys. The cover story of chinese sweat shops sure was convincing but I guess one farm was forgotten.

a reply to: JadeStar


You never will get something that proves there are alien artefacts on the moon but if you think about it, those things and some other great things (alien technology and other knowledge) must be there. ATS always comes back to this issue and with reason. We never should give up, because I believe those with the real power are hiding some knowledge from us, difficult to believe.

I know I referred to the next website a lot of times but if you read the whole site you maybe will start to believe it.

www.evawaseerst.be...

originally posted by: JadeStar

This second image was discovered my mikesingh a former ATS member. You could have at least acknowledged him!!

Check out his thread on ATS here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some more pics from his album which I happen to possess...













Images: Courtesy mikesingh

originally posted by: OrionHunterX

originally posted by: JadeStar

Some more pics from his album which I happen to possess...

Well, they're certainly artificial... because they are pieces of the lander! D'oh!

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: OrionHunterX

originally posted by: JadeStar

Some more pics from his album which I happen to possess...

Well, they're certainly artificial... because they are pieces of the lander! D'oh!

Please read the ATS link I provided since I cannot waste time trying to explain what they might or might not be. D'oh!

And hey, just one more thing. Check out the coordinates of the earlier Moon landers. NONE ARE WITHIN A 1000 KM FROM WHERE THESE ARTIFACTS WERE FOUND. People do their homework before posting to prevent passing snide comments by 'experts' like you!

Luna 2 USSR 12 Sep 59 Sep 14 59 29.10N 0.0
Ranger 4 USA 23 Apr 62 Apr 26 62 15.5S 130.7W
Ranger 6 USA 30 Jan 64 Feb 2 64 M Tranquilit.
Ranger 7 USA 28 Jul 64 Jul 31 64 10.35S 21.58W
Ranger 8 USA 17 Feb 65 Feb 20 65 2.67N 24.65E
Ranger 9 USA 21 Mar 65 Mar 24 65 12.83S 2.37W
Luna 5 USSR 9 May 65 May 65 31S 8E
Luna 7 USSR 4 Oct 65 Oct 65 9N 40W
Luna 8 USSR 3 Dec 65 Dec 65 9:08N 63:18W
Luna 9 USSR 31 Jan 66 Feb 3 66 7:08N 64:33W
Surveyor 1 USA 30 May 66 Jun 2 66 2:27S 43:13W
Lunar O. 1 USA 10 Aug 66 Oct 29 66 7N 161E
Surveyor 2 USA 20 Sep 66 Sep 22 66 S Copernicus
Lunar O. 2 USA 6 Nov 66 Oct 11 67 3N 119.1E
Luna 13 USSR 21 Dec 66 Dec 24 66 18:52N 62:03W
Lunar O. 3 USA 5 Feb 67 Oct 10 67 14.32N 92.7W
Surveyor 3 USA 17 Apr 67 Apr 20 67 2:56S 23:20W
Lunar O. 4 USA 4 May 67 Oct 31 67 ? 22-30W
Surveyor 4 USA 14 Jul 67 Jul 17 67 0:26N 1:20W
Lunar O. 5 USA 1 Aug 67 Jan 31 68 2.79S 83W
Surveyor 5 USA 8 Sep 67 Sep 11 67 1:25N 22:15E
Surveyor 6 USA 6 Nov 67 Nov 10 67 0:25N 1:20W
Surveyor 7 USA 7 Jan 68 Jan 10 68 40:53S 11:26W
Luna 15 USSR 13 Jul 69 Jul 21 69 17N 60E
Apollo 11 USA 16 Jul 69 Jul 20 69 0:41N 23:26E
Apollo 12 USA 14 Nov 69 Nov 19 69 3:11S 23:23W
Luna 16 USSR 12 Sep 70 Sep 20 70 0:41S 56:18E
Luna 17 USSR 10 Nov 70 Nov 17 70 38:18N 35W (Mare Imbrium)

Thanks.

a reply to: JadeStar

Umm...I'm not the only one that knows that the first image is of Meteor Crater in Arizona, right?

originally posted by: OrionHunterX

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: OrionHunterX

originally posted by: JadeStar

Some more pics from his album which I happen to possess...

Well, they're certainly artificial... because they are pieces of the lander! D'oh!

And hey, just one more thing. Check out the coordinates of the earlier Moon landers. NONE ARE WITHIN A 1000 KM FROM WHERE THESE ARTIFACTS WERE FOUND. People do their homework before posting to prevent passing snide comments by 'experts' like you!

What are you blathering about? It's part of the Luna 13 lander THAT TOOK THE PHOTOGRAPH! What, do you think it would just happen to land next to pieces of a different spacecraft BY CHANCE?

Look, here's a version of the photo that doesn't look like a bad photocopy of a fax of a photocopy:



More of them here, and look what they are!



Now, who needs to do their homework?