City On The Moon Found On Google Map, Oct 2015

a reply to: seagull

...and on that note, this thread is closed for staff review.

*** ATTENTION ***

This thread is now reopened with the understanding that if staff have to address off-topic comments again after everyone was already asked to stay on topic, the thread will be permanently closed without warning.

Please stay on topic and discuss the subject matter only. Thank you, and carry on.


(Do not respond to this post.)

I hope that this hasn't been mentioned already, but the supposed cities are nothing more than the boundary between a high resolution and low resolution imagery in google.

If you use google Earth, switch to the 'moon' view. You'll see a high resolution strip running along the moon. That strip is a rendered version of the Apollo 15 Mapping Camera images taken during Rev 33. Here's the rendered strip:



and here are all the images from Rev 33 which I have superimposed on google moon:



Had they bothered, the people posting this tripe could have checked other mapping camera images from the same mission. Rev 38 covered just the area of the 'city', and rev 60 covered it exactly:



The 'city' would also be big enough to see from terrestrial telescopes, and in the photographs taken by many other probes not run by NASA, who (believe it or not) are not the only space research organisation.

The kmz files for google moon are available on my site, see my sig.

NASA is not hiding anything. People who want your web traffic and your money are.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

NASA isn't hiding anything?

ROFLMAO

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Thanks for that reply . Your research makes more sense.
How about the 'building' photo in my first post. Is that even on the moon?
Looks a bit like those photos of targets in Syria !

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: onebigmonkey

NASA isn't hiding anything?

ROFLMAO

Well that certainly convinces me - the depth and thoroughness of your logical point by point rebuttal totally swings it.

a reply to: radarloveguy

All of the images are from the border of that high resolution strip, some of which they have helpfully used the paint tool on to make it look better

originally posted by: radarloveguy
These structures were found by Sandra Elena Andrade of Youtube.

Youtube video with added music = hoax.

originally posted by: radarloveguy
How about the 'building' photo in my first post. Is that even on the moon?
Looks a bit like those photos of targets in Syria !

The "building" appears to be a result of joining the photo with the rest of the images, that type of artefact is relatively common in situations like this.

still no comment on the photo from the OP. I really don't get what does that pic have to do with resolution of the strip or whatever.

The pic itself (haven't verified if it really exists) ...does not look like an artifact. I think we've all seen plenty of those. This is not it.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: radarloveguy
How about the 'building' photo in my first post. Is that even on the moon?
Looks a bit like those photos of targets in Syria !

The "building" appears to be a result of joining the photo with the rest of the images, that type of artefact is relatively common in situations like this.

oh come on Armap...you're stretching it.

This an artifact from joining photos ? You cant be serious. Can you please provide something even remotely similar...on any of the "joinings".

here's a zoomed in view



Hard to put this to stitching artifacts, imo. Unless you really want it to be...

I think these are all just badly stitched edges imo, google is known for tossing together badly matching imagery to make their maps. I used to do tiling textures for video games, so the ragged edge I'm seeing here seems familiar to me as lazy workmanship.

I used to be crazy for finding odd anomalies on google maps during my offtime at work, then I went to work for them doing visual data stuff with maps and got to see how much slop there is, and most the anomalies I found could be attributed to poor mapping on googles end. There are fanatics online pushing all the slop as aliens, bigfoot, ufo landing strips, loch ness

Their maps harvest as much free data as possible from users while paying the employees doing the hardest task the least (less than i made doing video game textures for sure). The end result is a somewhat shiny but horribly performing product. Moon is different than earth in that the data is much more limited and fewer sources i bet.

There are still plenty of places on google maps they intentionally black out or disguise, and that always is interesting and worth investigation. So thanks for sharing this.


ETA: One thing I should mention to keep in mind about google and companies like them is this, they make most decisions based on one thing alone, MONEY. So they omit things on maps that could get anyone hurt, harmed, but mostly it's about are they gonna get sued? They have so much money that everyone wants to sue them, so their best paid employees are all legal teams making sure they don't get sued.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
still no comment on the photo from the OP.

I couldn't find the image from the OP on the video.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
Hard to put this to stitching artifacts, imo. Unless you really want it to be...

Not stitching artefacts, as stitching is joining two images to make a bigger one, what I think is the source of this problem is the way they try to blend the different versions of the photos for a specific area.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: onebigmonkey

NASA isn't hiding anything?

ROFLMAO

Well that certainly convinces me - the depth and thoroughness of your logical point by point rebuttal totally swings it.

Nothing for rebuttal when you have already stated your firm stance which is that NASA isn't lying to you.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
here's a zoomed in view

Hard to put this to stitching artifacts, imo. Unless you really want it to be...

Hard to put this to a standard suburban house, imo. Unless you really want it to be...

Nothing for rebuttal when you have already stated your firm stance which is that NASA isn't lying to you.

I think the issue here is that saying "ROFLMAO" is not a particularly erudite contribution to the issue. It shows your cynicism, of course, but absolutely nothing else.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

My stance is backed by evidence, which I supplied.

I'm still waiting for yours.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

My stance is backed by evidence, which I supplied.

I'm still waiting for yours.

You said you supplied evidence? Of what? That NASA doesn't lie? I am sure they would be happy to see that too.

a reply to: schuyler

It's difficult not to laugh when I see people flat out claim that NASA doesn't lie about things. The Brookings report proved a long time ago that they do lie. It is the nature of their adopted beast. So? People have been liars for millennia. Bill Clinton lied. Hillary lied,,,, Everyone in government practically lies to the American people.
They conducted biological experiments on citizens and lied about it way back, and again and again. Now we know for a fact they do these things.

The EPA lied about toxic dumps. FDA lied about drugs that were harmful and deadly. The CDC lies about diseases.

The Atomic energy commission lies about radiation. "it's good for you"..

Shall I go on and on with more common knowledge, or are you going to even lie to yourself?

But NASA doesn't lie.. Right? Is naivety an acquired taste or is it paid for with pretty images?