Uncensored NASA Moon Images!!

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by mikesingh

 

Hey Mike, just wondering if you or Zoron have any pictures of the moon you have taken yourselves with a telescope? I know most of the good stuff is hidden on the otherside, but you never know?

I want to buy a telescope to do the same, but there are so darn many to choose from I can't decide what to get to view the moon and all its treasure.

Z

Hi Z! Nope. I haven't taken any pics of the Moon with a scope. But let me warn you that with a small scope you'd never be able to identify any anomalies on the Moon!

Even the huge 44 foot Hubble orbiting the Earth at +- 550 km with the primary mirror 2.4 m wide, with a resolution of 0.06 arc-seconds, can't do it unless the objects are more than 400 meters wide! That's almost half a kilometer!

So don't even think of trying to find anomalies on the Moon with an amateur scope, unless you're looking for the Grand Canyon there!

Cheers!

reply to post by zorgon


Most excellent!!!

Well...it doesnt take a slide rule or months of study to see the obvious in these images and what they are.

There are other images taken by the MOC camera that also show semi-buried ruins like we see in these Moon images. I remember making a huge archive of them and will have to find those discs and will post once I locate them. They are perfect samples to also compare with the Moon images and ancient sites here on Earth.

Granted that nature can do some amazing things and shape rocks and terrain into incredible things that look like something we are all familiar with. However, the key is in the repetiveness of the shapes. In these semi-buried ruins here on Earth, its clear they are structures by the very "nature" of their layout and geometric patterns. The same is the case with these sub-buried ruins being found on the images from the Moon and Mars. They have a geometric pattern, a repetitive form.

I am no geological expert nor a photo analyst expert...but if these formations in the images from the Moon have an appearance to ancient civilization sites here on Earth...well I think we can pretty much rule out that what we are seeing is due to mother nature.

Cheers!!!

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


I'd recommend checking out space.com's telescope buying guide--there are a lot of pitfalls to avoid when buying your first telescope.

The other thing I'd mention is that no matter how great the telescope you buy, most likely you won't be able to see the details provided by these pictures here....just my 2 cents.

reply to post by mikesingh


I have to agree with your statement that these anomalies in the images have yet to be catagorized as either "alien" or "human" in origin.

I tend to believe they were built from our very own distant ancestors of 10, 20 perhaps 30 thousand years ago...maybe more. In the near future when we return to the Moon in 2020 as called for by the current administration, we may find some records or some indication as to the age and origin of these ruins. Unless of course, they already know that and just have not yet let that part of the truth come out yet.

Looking at these images is sort of looking at one of those brain teaser images for some folks. They simply cannot see what is there or seperate the differences to pick out the anomaly/s. Think of it similar to being color blind...you get to a stop light, and all 3 lights are the same greyish color. If one did not know that usually the top light is stop, the bottom light is go and the middle light is "caution"...how would you know the difference? Same would be true to the lights in a horizontal fashion...the far left is stop, the far right is go and the middle is caution, but they all look the same hue.

Perhaps giving those that cannot see what we are seeing here some sort of clue, maybe highlight the anomaly and darken out the rest of the terrain.

Well...whats next? (hopes for a clean, sharp image of some of this stuff!!)

Cheers!!

If you plan to buy a telescope with a camera mount, make shure you get a very stable tripod for the scope, preferably one that has the automatic motion system built in..ie: keeps the telescope pinpointed in relation to the Earth's rotation.

Beleive it or not, when looking at the Moon with a telescope on a steady tripod without the motion sensing system, you can watch the Moon move right out of your viewfinder, and at an amazing quick rate too.

The motion stability system keeps that telescope pointed right at your target and compensates for the rotation motion, which in turn will keep the Moon in the viewfinder and get you some awsome pictures!

Cheers!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
I am no geological expert nor a photo analyst expert...but if these formations in the images from the Moon have an appearance to ancient civilization sites here on Earth...well I think we can pretty much rule out that what we are seeing is due to mother nature.

Well it appears SETI is in agreement with that concept

Towards Lunar Archaeology
Dr. Alexey V. Arkhipov
Institute of Radio Astronomy, Nat. Acad. Sci. of Ukraine

Our Moon is a potential indicator of a possible alien presence near the Earth at some time during the past 4 billion years. To ascertain the presence of alien artifacts, a survey for ruinlike formations on the Moon has been carried out as a precursor to lunar archaeology.

Computer algorithms for semi-automatic, archaeological photo-reconnaissance are discussed. About 80,000 Clementine lunar orbital images have been processed, and a number of quasirectangular patterns found. Morphological analysis of these patterns leads to possible reconstructions of their evolution in terms of erosion. Two scenarios are considered: 1) the collapse of subsurface quasi-rectangular systems of caverns, and 2) the erosion of hills with quasi-rectangular lattices of lineaments. We also note the presence of embankment-like,
quadrangular, hollow hills with rectangular depressions nearby.. Tectonic (geologic) interpretations of these features are considered. The similarity of these patterns to terrestrial archaeological sites and proposed lunar base concepts suggest the need for further study and future in situ exploration.

"There are times when a scientist must not be afraid to make a fool of himself"
- Arthur C. Clarke

Today, the idea of exploring the Moon for non-human artifacts is not a popular one among selenologists. Unfortunately, the detection of ET artifacts on the Moon is outside the interest of most selenologists due to their orientation towards natural formations and processes. It is also not of interest to mainstream archaeologists, as archaeology tends to adhere to a pre-Copernican geocentric point-of-view.

SETI On Lunar Archeology

In 1992, the Search for Alien Artifacts on the Moon (SAAM) — the first privately-organized archaeological reconnaissance of the Moon — was initiated. The justifications of lunar SETI, the wording of specific principles of lunar archaeology, and the search for promising areas on the Moon were the first stage of the project (1992-95). Preliminary results of lunar exploration6 show that the search for alien artifacts on the Moon is a promising SETI strategy, especially in the context of lunar colonization plans.

SOURCE:
The Society for Planetary SETI Research (SPSR)

SOURCE:
New Frontiers in Science, Vol. 1 No. 2, Winter 2002 PDF

So it seems we are in good company looking at anomalies in photos...

[edit on 25-8-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by RFBurns
The motion stability system keeps that telescope pointed right at your target and compensates for the rotation motion, which in turn will keep the Moon in the viewfinder and get you some awsome pictures!

Oh yes quite! Like this one... but it WILL take a bit of work

Perhaps giving those that cannot see what we are seeing here some sort of clue, maybe highlight the anomaly and darken out the rest of the terrain.

That is what Hoagland does (too much in my opinion) but that is why his stuff is so popular and why he sells so many books...

[edit on 25-8-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


A very awsome picture!!

Cheers!!

[edit on 25-8-2008 by RFBurns]

I tend to agree, RCH does do alot of shading out areas to put focus on the anomalies in his work.

But I think that is a good thing too. Mainly because he understands that not everyone can see these things when surrounded by a bunch of garbage..so he highlights "the good stuff" to make it easier.

I also believe that more of that may be needed so that the part of the public that cannot clearly see these things in the images..can see them without having to eye-strain and become disinterested.

I think its a good method...maybe a bit overdone here and there but it has a purpose.

Cheers!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


Spot on! But such guys would need to see LAX or Mcarran International Airport, Las Vegas, on the Moon together with ATCs, runways, Radars or probably even that redhead serving coffee at AUNTIE ANNE'S PRETZELS at the D terminal at Mcarran to be convinced!! Even then they would holler, 'Photoshopped'!! You can't convince some, can you?



[edit on 25-8-2008 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by mikesingh
reply to post by RFBurns

 

Spot on!

But such guys would need to see LAX or Mcarren International Airport, Las Vegas, together with ATCs, runways, Radars or probably even that redhead serving coffee at AUNTIE ANNE'S PRETZELS at the D terminal at Mcarren to be convinced!!

Even then they would holler, 'Photoshopped'!! You can't convince some, can you?

This is true. Even if the shark swam up behind them and bit them in the behind they would deny the waters are infested with sharks.

I suppose to those folks, its simply the matter of "comfy zone". Anything outside of that zone does not exsist and is fake, fabricated, a lie, whatever it can be called.

I do not think those folks can ever be convinced. I doubt that even an alien craft landing in their front yard would convince them..they would probably just brush it off as the next door neighbor's kid playing around with a new kind of RC airplane!

Frasier...Season 8...Episode 16..."Docu-Drama"

Cheers!!!

[edit on 25-8-2008 by RFBurns]

i think if you have a sharp angled incoming light a piece of dust will cast a very dark and defined shadow behind it.

so the spires... a slight bump on the surface would do it.

i can't see the triangular pyramid why should it be unnatural. and the other structure-like formations.

it is something like:
you take 5 dices and what is the chance that you throw 5 sixes?
it shouldn't take a few minutes, despite the slim possibility.

anything that can happen, happens in a practically shorter period of time that many of us thinks.

but i accept the tower as an anomaly,
and the tracks ???
though i think it was an extremely bad driver who made them to hit holes and bumps like that, or it was on a joyride... or it could be in a hurry for that matter...

or it could be an oil-pipe )
the fact is that thisone is not natural either.

OMG IS THAT A BEAR! All these years, I wondered why we never could find a bear carcass in the woods...that's where they all go to die.

Here's another spire. The image I think is from Apollo 8. I had posted the details in some other thread of mine which I can't seem to locate. Can someone provide the details of this pic? Thanks!



[edit on 25-8-2008 by mikesingh]

reply to post by mikesingh


now that is a spire!!

at least here you have the right lighting conditions.
or they might captured a high velocity impact (because the decals shoot up vertically).

what's with the blue battleship to the right?
are they admiring the spire?
(just kiding)

AntisepticSkeptic
These are just rocks....

I can make up stuff out of rocks in the Grand Canyon, doesn't mean the rocks in the Grand Canyon are ancient ruins...

But the formations in the Grand Canyon were formed from sedimentation and carved by water and wind erosion.

The moon supposedly has no such erosive forces.

A tower and other geometric structures

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by mikesingh

 

Great thread mikesingh !

thanks for sharing these photo's and they are really an excellent find. i found myself staring at all of them for way too long but the one that most intrigues me is this one...

this is unexplainable in my opinion , and there is NO WAY this is a natural formation. for me this picture is undeniable proof that either there was a past civilization there or Aliens are on the Moon

excellent job sir...you get a star and flag from me !

I feel really bad for you.. a little sad as well.

That you can so definitively decide based on an image as clear as a Beijing summer afternoon tells me that you have lost all sense of objectivity in your life. But don't despair; you are certainly not the only one.

This picture is NOT "undeniable proof". This picture is interesting. It does not prove there are non-natural structures on the moon. It is certainly something to ponder, but it certainly isn’t “proof”. It COULD be a trick of light, it COULD be a rock formation, in fact it is infinitely more likely that it is a rock formation than a sacred tower built by the “Moonies” civilization of 3400 BC.

I agree with you on one thing…you hit the nail on the head with the "this is unexplainable in my opinion" but not in the sense you meant.

You, not being a geological expert (and we collectively seem to blow them all off when they comment on this topic) means you have no real idea as to what this is or what causes it to look this way. Do you? As far as I know, you are also not an expert on atmospheric (or lack thereof) plays of light, shadow or contrast and lastly, you are not an imaging expert.

Guess what.. I am none of those either but I didn't exclaim to everyone that it is undeniable proof of a Wal-Mart on the moon. So how can you? Or better yet, how can you do so.. honestly?
I have read countless posts on this subject (moon/mars images) and have seen countless people proclaim to "know" something can or cannot be.

No one here seems to be very objective and some of you outright lie or are just ridiculously ignorant.

One guy constantly posts that these types of "structures" and abnormalities are not natural and you can’t find things like this on earth. I suggest that guy download google earth and check out all the weird "structures" and abnormalities you can EASILY find on our planet.

Then we have the guy who states emphatically that "structures" and abnormalities can't possibly appear on the moon because it has no "air", so I guess the moon must be perfectly flat then.. excuse the rest of us (geologists included) us for totally missing that one.

"Spires" could easily be something else besides.. Spires.
The way the light falls and the angle of the image, the time of "day" the location. A small pointy rock can look like a pyramid shadow in the right lighting and ….

Why the hell don't more people realize that???
Why the hell don't more people WANT to realize that???

I am not saying "I know for a fact..." because I do not, but those of you who jump to "undeniable proof" are just either shameless or outright clueless and I feel bad that you have to go through life with that lack of objectivity. If you want to say "it looks like a tower" and have an opinion that there "might" have been a civilization.. ok, cool, you're entitled to believe that.. there is at least a billionth chance that is remotely possible, but when someone says "I know" or uses the phrase, "undeniable proof" based on this type of "evidence" I must call them out as what they are...



I apologize for the offense...(I know.. I'm an ass)

The moon supposedly has no such erosive forces.

it has other erosive forces whit much heavier impact then wind and water. meteors, radiation (heavy particles) and especially temperature fluctuations witch are more pronounced in the time of high solar flare activity (that's why it is so dusty upthere).
but it is in general very target oriented, ie. if you are lucky yr footprint wont be disturbed for quite a few hundred years. but if it will then there will be nothing left.

Originally posted by encoder
reply to post by mikesingh

 

Now that is a spire!!

Let's enhance it a bit more with B/C and this is what's in the vicinity!

Originally posted by gormly
I feel really bad for you.. a little sad as well.
This picture is NOT "undeniable proof".

Heck! The self styled experts we have to contend with here! You my friend either don't know the English language or else you're reading some other thread and mistakenly replied on this one.

Now can you quote where I have mentioned "undeniable proof" as you have said, in any of these 35 pages? Have you even bothered to read through the thread and my comments on these images therein? I think not or else you wouldn't spew this garbage with gay abandon. Reading through your entire post, it does seem you are pretty inebriated with the exuberance of your verbosity. Boils down to zilch!

(I know.. I'm an ass)

Yep! Now I know it too!


[edit on 25-8-2008 by mikesingh]