Originally posted by GoldEagle
Originally posted by Street Scholar
I'm not saying I believe it's a Death Star (for all I know it's just some freak of nature moon), but if you're going to debunk do it
Sure, you don't believe that it's a Death Star. I find it hard to believe that you are against the idea that it is artifical after that little rant.
If I'm not debunking right, lets see you try. If your so good at it you could have answered your question yourself.
*washes all the soot away from the flame*
Woah woah woah...little rant?? I know you've put some time typing up your theories, but why the hostility?? Sorry if I came off strong, I only
think this guy brings up some strange features of the moon. I even told you what I know about it as of right now, it looks like a freak of nature
moon! Calm down so we can be reasonable.
I was only asking for a little more information on the things posted. How does a "3D terrain render" improve the perspective of an image? I
understand it's supposed to add depth, but it's still a modification and can be incorrect. Since one of your criticisms Hoagland is the use of
images for misdirection, I only felt it was fair to point out the duality of it (and how it doesn't always help in debunking). If you say he needs
to point out where his material is from, I'm going to ask the same of you.
If this entire thread is devoted to debunking the "seedship" idea, then all you have to do is say you think the guy's nuts (you can't disprove
opinion). Or we could talk about the unique formations of this moon and speculate, leaving us with a just as unconclusive of a theory. So you wanted
what I think, here it is:
Evidence 1 (internal environment) vs Solution 1 (gas emmissions) -- theory vs theory -- unconclusive (even though I think Hoagland's idea on this is
Evidence 2 (surface structures) vs Solution 2 (Blocky JPEG) -- theory vs theory -- unconclusive (we should find the hi-res images of these
Evidence 3 (hexagonal craters) vs Solution 3 (cliff system) -- theory vs theory -- unconclusive (how does that explain all 6 flat sides for each
crater? maybe more res problems? )
Evidence 4 (tower) vs Solution 4 (blocky JPEG) -- Debunked, very well done here, Hoagland is quite misleading.
Evidence 3 revisited, new images posted -- The only "cliff system" I see is the ridge of the crater. I still think they're strangely shapped.
So we've discovered there's no tower, now I'm curious about some it's other features. This is one of the ones I'm more curious about that you
still didn't really explain:
The gravity of any moon should be enough to "squash" the surface into a sphere on a larger scale. Even if it was "lumpy" (as you put it) it would
still look round from a distance.
Look, we still can't explain why OUR moon stays in sync with the earth like it does; I don't think we're going to get further from speculation on
this one. That being said, I enjoy the speculation, but let's not take ourselves too seriously.
Sorry for writing a long reply that says the same thing Whompa1 said earlier.