Originally posted by NGC2736
Exactly what tests using what methods have you used to analyze the photo so quickly? would you share your path to such sure knowledge with the rest of
us? Or is it just your own eyeball and big super brain that dissected this so quickly?
Okay. You seem like a pretty smart person, so you should be able to follow this line of thinking:
Assuming it's really a photo of a lunar feature, I really only know of a half dozen Earthly artifacts that ever made it up there, and I don't
recognize any of them in that little photo crop. No human artifacts.
Secondly, nobody has ever, ever proven the existence of aliens. So that automatically leaves them out as a logical explanation, doesn't it? You
can't seriously want to explain something with an unknown, can you? That makes no sense at all. Might as well say it's a unicorn watering hole.
Oh, unicorns can't live on the Moon you say? Okay, you got me there.
You may believe in aliens. Fair enough. But belief is lousy when it comes to verifying something. If you have some conclusive absolute proof of any
kind of alien, period, not even on the Moon, that would be a huge help.
Once we have your unassailable proof of aliens, then we'll debate about whether or not this combination of light and shadow is related to them in
some way. I mean, proving aliens exist doesn't prove they have anything to do with this stuff on the Moon, does it? Of course not. It's like
saying that potatoes are grown in Idaho, so all potatoes come from Idaho.
In any event, proving the aliens is first on the list. So go ahead. I'm all ears.
Until you prove the existence of aliens, though, we're left with the best default explanation. Rocks. Rocks casting shadows. We know rocks and
shadows exist, and that the Moon is covered with them. So we're safe there. And we also know that shadows sometimes fall so that they suggest
something to the human brain. Skulls, space ships, water slide parks. We agree on that, right? I don't know what it could be in this example, but
maybe you have a better imagination than I do.
But let's not give up that easily. Come on! How would we go about proving that it's not just rocks and shadows? Hmmm... Well, it would help if it
was a really, really clear image and the thing in it was so obviously artificial it just couldn't be denied. Maybe with some writing on it, to boot.
Unfortunately, we can blow this up until the pixels are two inches across and it still won't make that happen. There's just not enough information
in the image. And even so, rocks and shadows naturally form things like right angles and triangle shapes. That would still make the image
debateable. So we're stuck there.
I'm still not giving up, though! What else? Like I said, it would be great if we just had some other bit of information about the thing we're
supposed to be seeing. Another photo from another angle with different lighting would be good. Not the best, though. No, what we really need is
some kind of non-photograhic evidence. A radar or gravity scan would be great. The higher the density the better!
The best thing, of course, would be an actual piece of the supposed artifact that a group of scientists could study in detail for as long as they
wanted. That would be the best!
But... aw... we don't have anything like that at all. Doggone it. And here I was really trying to prove this image showed something alien. I
really was. Wouldn't that be the coolest? It sure would! Do you know of any anything else we could do to help prove the image shows something
alien? I'm all out of ideas.
Anyway, when all is said and done, if all I have is the fuzzy image, then I'm going to have to say it's a rock formation. Could it be an alien
artifact? A unicorn watering hole? Jesus's tomb? There's no specific point at which improbable becomes impossible. Impossible is one of those
big words like "infinity." But proving that stuff is going to take a little bit more evidence. Actually, a whole lot more evidence. Which we
apparently don't have.
So look at it this way. Until we get some way better information and evidence, even if what's shown in the image isn't just some random rock
formation, it might as well be. What's the difference if you can't prove it?