Gigantic alien structures in Herschel crater - Apollo 12 image

reply to post by ziggystar60


OK, now that you have shown the places that you think look artificial, could you please tell us why do you find them artificial looking?

Thanks.

reply to post by ArMaP





Hi, I will try to explain as best I can:

Right in the middle of the crater, there is a very large feature which resembles a frog - and for the record, I do NOT think there is a big alien reptile on the moon! This structure is very symmetrical in its shape. It has two "front legs" (I do not think they are actual legs) which are the same lenght, and they seem to rise above the ground at the same hight. The big feature also has spheres on top of it (almost like the "frog" has "eyes") and these spheres are placed very neatly and symmetrical. The large structure also has an almost circular feature on the side that is visible in the image - it looks a little like a shield. I cant find a better way to describe it.

Above and a little to the left of the largest feature, I see "tubes" which are bent the same way and in the same direction. I also see what looks like a trifork (I hope that is the right term), and this trifork is also very symmetrical.

Above the largest feature and to the right of the bent tubes and the trifork there is another perfectly angular structur on the ground.

To the right of the "frog" feature I see a structure shaped almost like a star. I have circled that also.

All these things combined makes me believe that the structures are artificial and not natural. There are just far too many symmetrical, angular features in one place.

I hope I have managed to make my opinion clearer to you. (But I am sure you will have a good laugh at my "frog" explanation! I just can't find any better word for describing this remarkable structure.)

All the best to you from Ziggystar60.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by ziggystar60]

reply to post by ziggystar60


Thanks, that's better.

As I only see natural formations, I did not had any idea of what you were seeing.

An off-topic comment: frogs are not reptiles, they are amphibians.

I have found one more image, this from Lunar Orbiter IV, image 4-108-h3

Full size

reply to post by ArMaP


Sorry about calling frogs reptiles. English is not my native language, so I mixed up the words. As I am sure I have done before here at ATS.

Thanks for the image you provided. But it is of rather poor quality, and I don't think it can explain away the artificial looking sructures in the image I posted in the beginning of this thread.

Best regards, Ziggystar60.

reply to post by ziggystar60


Don't worry, English is not my native language either and I am not a frog, so everything is OK.

I thought of posting that photo, although not good enough for our purpose, just for making it known that there is also one photo (at least) of Herschel taken by another mission.

Clementine also took a photo of Herschel but, as all Clementine images, is not good to show these type of things.

Actually, ArMaP's sourced picture is significantly clearer than Ziggy's original - less contrast, but greater detail

Unfortunately for Ziggy, it only further re-enforces the "it's natural" argument (not that it needed much re-enforcement anyway..)

It's not that we can't see various shapes and features in the pictures, it's that experience leads us to very different conclusions.

Pareidolia is the term I believe..

iRock

Or, Pigs Might Fly

reply to post by Stoo


I have absolutely no idea why you claim that ArMaP's last image has greater detail, when it clearly lacks a lot of detail, but never mind.
Just wanted to tell you that the image of the "pig" was great fun! Thanks for sharing it.

Best regards, Ziggystar60.

WOW! Yet another rock simulacra thread! Aliens are sneaky though. They know we will spot them, that's why they build everything to look like rocks.

Originally posted by cruzion
WOW! Yet another rock simulacra thread! Aliens are sneaky though. They know we will spot them, that's why they build everything to look like rocks.

No.
Yet another thread started by someone who wants to find out more.
It's after discussions like this one that one may learn something. Do you think that someone may learn something from a post like your last one mate?

Well yeah. They will learn not to waste their precious life speculating on rock formations that could look like anyhting under the sun that has ever entered anyones conciousness. Why don't you go out and take pictures of clouds for us to assess and scrutinize? It would serve as much purpose.

reply to post by cruzion


mate LISTEN: i have no time to waste. Just a hint for you. Waste your time elsewhere. This is Space Exploration forum: if you find something wrong with this thread please contact the staff and sing your song there.

reply to post by cruzion


First, you don't know what other people can or can not learn; your words may not be efficient enough or the listener (or reader, in this case) may not understand what you are saying.

Second, speculation is not a waste of time if you follow it with analysis. Speculation is what drives invention, exploration, study, etc.

It only depends on the person doing the speculation.

Also, I don't consider this a case of simulacra because ziggystar60 did not said that this looked like anything specific, he(?) only said that it looks artificial, and in that case there are only two options, its of alien origin or its from Earthly origin.

So, seeing what he thought was a very large artificial structure I find it perfectly acceptable that he started a thread called "Gigantic alien structures in Herschel crater - Apollo 12 image", although I think he should have put a question mark at the end.

Oh, and I only see natural structures, but not only rocks, there's some dust down there too.

reply to post by ArMaP


Hi, thanks for your comment. I also wanted to tell you that you are absolutely right - I should have used a question mark in the title of my thread. It would have been the correct thing to do. After all, I have only posted an image and my own personal theory about it.

I promise you that if I start another thread in the future, I will be sure to include a question mark in the title if it is the right thing to do.

Best regards, Ziggystar60.

I don't know if this helps or not, but here is one more image of Herschel.



This is taken from a Topographic Orthophotomap available here in 72 and 150 DPI in JPEG format or a 300 DPI JPEG2000 format (the one I used).

The image above is reduced to 25%, this is the full image (but a crop of the original image).

If only we could see the original photo used to make the above image...

Has anyone here taken a pebble and dropped it into water? What happens? The pebble descends into the water, and initially creates a concave shape in the water...then, as the water returns to fill this concave, we get a 'rebounding spiral' at the center. Try it, it's true, and basic physics.

So, why is it so hard for people to understand or accept the fact that there can & will be these kinds of formations on the moon? It depends on when these craters were formed. In the earlier times, the moon was very probably in some kind of molten state. Any debris from space striking the moon would have created the 'pebble' effect. However, as molten is less viscose as water, that pebble effect would be like in a thick mud. The center section would lift, but only very little, and upon cooling, would leave a small mound in the center.

If space debris striked the moon in it's later years, and it was now in a solid state, the craters would have no center 'bump' as such.

I'm no scientist or expert, but my logic says this is why we have different looking craters on the moon.

As much as I WANT to believe what can be on the moon (artificial structures, alien bases, etc) , I still haven't seen any evidence that convinces me. Guys, we need more than just 'unnatural shapes', and blurry imaging, to convince people of our cause.

Thats not new picture there use to be a book out called extraterrestrial architecture and thats in it.

reply to post by ArMaP


Hi, ArMaP, thanks for posting the Topographic map image. I don't know what to make out of it, though, to me it's difficult to even recognize the crater in this image. But perhaps some of the other members here at ATS can draw some conclusions from it?

Best regards, Ziggystar60.

Originally posted by Majorwood
Thats not new picture there use to be a book out called extraterrestrial architecture and thats in it.

Hi, I am not sure what image you are talking about, is it the image I posted in the beginning of this thread? And I don't know the book you mention either - can you tell me more about it?

Best regards, Ziggystar60.

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


I agree wholeheartedly.

ZIggySTarr, you have presented us with the picture of a crater with supposed artificial structures. Personally I don't see them and awaited you posting the same picture with circles highlighting their positions. I would also have expected an explanation as to how you came to your opinion. Instead we have a few pictures of craters on the moon.

Could you please circle what it is you see, on the original picture from the first posting.

Originally posted by itchy_tartan_blanket
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe

 

Could you please circle what it is you see, on the original picture from the first posting.

Hi, almost at the top of page 5 in this thread, I have done what you ask. I have also tried to give an explanation to why I think the structures in the image are artificial and not natural. I apologize for not doing this in my very first post in the thread.

Best regards, Ziggystar60.