Originally posted by Sophismata

Originally posted by zorgon
Sigh I know its hard... Especially when the real stuff is actually very small. It has to be on the scale of these images. I have added some color to some images... might help a bit...

Sorry, it didn't help me see anything in those pics. Perhaps one has to believe in order to see? In that case, I'm not interested. If there's anything on the moon or mars that one doesn't have to already believe in in order for it to be there, THEN I'll be interested.

I don't think anyone here will be dissapointed in your lack of interest.
But...
You are missing the whole point of this thread. It's not about 'believing in order to see'. It's about examining the evidence with an open mind. These pics represent a very small subset of photos that NASA has allowed to get out into the public domain. The several anomalies identified in this thread, aside from the shadows and silly stuff, show compelling evidence that something is/was going on up there. If you can't see it, that's cool too. Apparently a lot of other folks can. But, IF, on the outside chance, you are still interested, I would suggest looking at all the full photos on your own, zooming in on interesting areas, without the help of the multiple spoilers people have posted throughout the thread.

I hope, but sincerely doubt, that someday clear evidence will be furnished to the public, and make people at least be interested

Originally posted by Zarniwoop

You are missing the whole point of this thread. It's not about 'believing in order to see'. It's about examining the evidence with an open mind.

Having an open mind works both ways I think. It would seem to me that if both sides considered others viewpoints with an "open mind" more truths would be uncovered and more myth's could be put to rest. In reading through threads on this board I have seen more shoving of opinions down other peoples throats than constructive debate. You however seem quite reasonable.

Originally posted by InDirectViolation

If you can not see the layers extending to the other end of the slide area, I don't know what to say? (for those just tuning in you need to see my post uncropped a few pages back page15)

I looked on page 15. I don't see your point. Not to say there isn't a good argument there. As for the earthly examples, I see no relevance

Originally posted by InDirectViolation

Originally posted by Zarniwoop

You are missing the whole point of this thread. It's not about 'believing in order to see'. It's about examining the evidence with an open mind.

Having an open mind works both ways I think. It would seem to me that if both sides considered others viewpoints with an "open mind" more truths would be uncovered and more myth's could be put to rest. In reading through threads on this board I have seen more shoving of opinions down other peoples throats than constructive debate. You however seem quite reasonable.

Well put.
It does go both ways. 'Constructive' debate is what this site all about.
I wish more people could see that. Open mind does not mean "see it my way". I enjoy seeing it ALL ways. Although, I think it's unrealistic to expect that everyone will contribute in this manner. That will never happen. You just have to sift through the crap to find the gold

Originally posted by Zarniwoop

I looked on page 15. I don't see your point. Not to say there isn't a good argument there. As for the earthly examples, I see no relevance

LOL I see one relevance in his post.... all those Basalt cliffs in the examples on earth are level terraces NO RAMPS to the other levels. And yes basalt columns do form hexagonal structure, but I don't recall seeing any of those in the moon photos...

I suppose the fact that John posted them here because he knows there is stuff going on up there and wanted us to see it for ourselves isn't important?

Sigh....

Originally posted by InDirectViolation

Some Earthly examples:
Basalt cliffs near Grand Coulee Dam-

You have to remember, IDV, these striking natural formations are caused by complex geological activity and weathering. The moon has neither.

Steve

This is frustrating, but I will continue to listen to both sides.

No offense, Zorgon, but I think my picture a few pages back demonstrates that you are looking at a zigzagging terrace mesa head on, not a parking garage. But if you can't see that the cube comes from the ZigZag, then I can only use the same argument others here are using in the opposite perspective: If you can't see the connection, well, too bad for you. Well, ok, I WONT use that argument because it serves no purpose. Instead, I will just ask that you take a look at the zigzag feature in photo 5, then rotate the perspective down towards ground level in your mind. You will see that the zigs basically line up to form a 'cube' with a tail hanging off that has been interpreted as a ramp.

The 'ramp' can be specifically pointed out as a tail on one of the zigs. In my opinion, you are letting your brain make too many assumptions about vertical structure. I think John Leer is dead wrong about the parking garage.

That is not to say that (a) John is wrong about the moon or that (b) the gov doesn't release disinfo to disinform its consituency.

But I really want to meet and talk to one of these NASA photo-editors personally. That would be a great experience and give me far more insight into a world view.

For now, all I have seen is a zigzaging mesa viewed head on misidentified as a parking garage at the wrong size scale.

I will look into the crane photos and try to find the regions of topology from photo 5 to look for matches. What I need to see is one where topology is not the explanation. Zorgon, you said you are going to post a big photo with all of the interesting stuff circled. That would be extremely helpful as then I could focus on trying to match them up with things in photo 5. If I can't find exemplary matchups, then I can start to think about retouching or cranes being moved around. But for now, I have only seen one example, and the result was negative.

I get the feeling that maybe John took high altitude spy photography, and thus has more insight into how to do this stuff than he says. But maybe I am just reading into this too much. IN either case, all I can do is go with what I see from my analysis, and so far it is bleak. I'll hold off on further commentary until I can really analyze all of the stuff being pointed out, and that could take some time.

Zorgon,

If you believe you can see individual Basalt column's on a photo taken from over 40 miles away, I don't know what to say to you. That tiny feature on the photo is actually very large.

My other comment was a general comment made to someone else. I'm just participating in what should be a polite discussion and sharing of opinions. I find this topic interesting. I'd be interested in seeing your argument in favor of this being a building rather than a geologic feature. I've presented my evidence and now it is your turn.

Originally posted by Ectoterrestrial
No offense, Zorgon,

None taken

But don't forget that your "zigzag" is a top view, not a front view... it kinda looks like pointed spires on the roof too...:p


But the parking Garage wasn't my find... that one is Johns

Zorgon, you said you are going to post a big photo with all of the interesting stuff circled. That would be extremely helpful as then I could focus on trying to match them up with things in photo 5.

LOL working on that and I do have it all on my website, but there has been so much to correlate so its taking a while. And I am conscious of the scale thingy, as well as the "looks like" rock formations {usually way off scale} and the shadows...

But you will have to be patient. I DO have a day job you know... But the first two fixed pages on my site will be up in a couple of hours. I am breaking the "enigmas" into areas and matching them location wise with the four pics and where they correspond on #5. Too bad the scale and clarity of #5 is different... that makes it hard to find some of them.

I have on the site done the best I can to show what and where they are. As I said before I am taking the time because I want that info on my site, but if it helps anyone to see what we see so much the better. What I have noticed is the overall effect of the anomalies I have pinpointed... and as a whole picture... it is way to much for coincidence...

I get the feeling that maybe John... more insight into how to do this stuff than he says.

Ummmm errr who spilled the beans?

But your right it will take some time to analyse everything... especially the real anomalies because they are so tiny and therefor difficult to recognize. Some people have a trained eye for minute details in photos and also the ability to be able to recognise features that may not appear to a normal person ie those guys who spend hours pouring over spy photos, especially from the 60's LOL

And sometimes you can look at the thing for hours and not see it because you are not really sure what you are looking for. I have done so... especially looking at the black, and not seeing the white... if you know what I mean.

Yes it would be nice if we had IKONOS type clarity... but then there would be no mystery would there? But I wonder how many would then say... "It's a hoax! I don't believe it" like they did with the Lunar landings?

Well if by significant you mean some of this stuff is missing from #5, then i'm caught on

If not then it's back to the drawing board...

Great job with this stuff so far zorgon. Can't wait to see the site when it's finished.

P.S.- Found a peekaboo in #5




Little buggers are hiding everywhere

Those who suggest that one has to 'believe' in anomalies to see them should remember that the inverse is as just about as true; if you do not your subconscious mind will take the hint and make sure your information feed wont enable much else. We do not perceive anything 'as it is' ( whatever it may be in a 'objective reality'- good luck- not tainted by perception or what our limited senses enables for us) but really as we are and those who do not understand that may claim ( consciously anyways) that they are attempting a objective evaluation without having the subconscious predisposition to manage such.

The subconscious mind is a million times 'stronger' than the conscious mind ( Quoting Dr Bruce Lipton) and that is why lay people throughout history has so frequently been able to see what trained 'experts' simple can not( really will not as their powerful subconscious mind overpowers whatever objectivity they might consciously aspire to ) by looking at the very same reality. Formal schooling is but one of the processes by which our own very own minds ( and the most dangerous part of it) are turned against us by those who have always attempted to control us.

In closing the more you 'want' or 'need' to believe something the less trust you should put in what your senses 'tells you' and the more you should rely on what careful and extensive research reveals to you. If you have a vested subconcious interest in believing one thing over another ( the 'it just can't be' thinking) you must first establish why and address that before bothering with evidence as while the stronger part of your mind is actively sabotaging your attempted objective evaluation you don't stand much chance; it's that powerful a thing.

Stellar

[edit on 28-9-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by GlassRunner

Originally posted by TheBorg
Anyone see the face in the lower right of the image posted above?
TheBorg

I also noticed that but I think its just our tendency to see faces in everything that resembles a face.

So John, has it been long enough? Can you tell us where you think the retouching is? I MUST KNOW!

PSSTTTT Look in the left eye of that face... go on zoom in...

post=2491101 in case you forgot