Okay, that's not normal and I would never ever accept someone trying to pass it off as an image artifact, blur, "mosaic picture intersection
lines", dust, hair, the astronaut's saliva formed into a tiny dot. No, just no. That is something.
S + F this deserves an extraordinarily Close look.
Cool thread, I see an almost sphynx like shape inside the geometrical pattern of possible wall's forming a unequal but symetrical hexagon within a
circular feature that is flat at what I interpret as the rear of the sphynx like form so though beautifully circular elsewhere it is nice and flat
I am a firm believe in ancient ruin's up on the lunar surface anyway and think you have something of a bomb shell here, wait for the later and more
easily tampered image's to be used later in the post to try to discredit it, these older images are the best and most reliable when the air brush
monkey's have missed something.
You know the more I look at it the more like a kind of weapon on a rotating platform it look's.
edit on 21-8-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no
There is no denying it. That was made with intelligence and I don't mean in the creationism sense.
What year were these taken? Area? Do other photographs of the area in question exist that were taken from other angles, cameras, objects. Does the
shading match in the other ones? Do the formations still appear even from other angles?
I know that's a lot to answer but I'm seriously curious because we always see how other angles "debunk" them so I figured I'd ask the pertinent
questions all at once?
Also, any countries recently on the moon, any focus in that area? Maybe the Russians or Japanese landing probes and always doing flybys or "work"
aroudn there? I know flybys could be coincidental and explained as using the right approach angle to land or orbit safely.
It may be worthwhile to see if you can find the same formation in other, higher-resolution, images of the moon. Though interesting, the resolution of
the image is not sufficient to permit more detailed analysis, one thing we do have to look out for is Pareidolia and myriad of logical fallacies and
unwarranted reasoning. Distinguishing between features that may be artificial from natural features is not always easy, so what is needed is some
agreed upon criteria that will allow us to state with some certainty that a certain structure maybe artificial. You may wish to read up on Remote
sensing and Photometry to see what are the criteria for distinguishing between an artificial and natural formation.
edit on 21-8-2014 by
deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-8-2014 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.