It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clear Structures On The Moon (Really)

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MoonMine
The lack of any decent responses to this is puzzling.


Not really... Mike Singh already posted this image in another thread and we already discussed it there

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is that structure in a little more detail





posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
Consider this another obligatory "it's just rocks" post.


Well your obligatory "it's just rocks" posts might have some validity if you could actually qualify them with..

A) what type of rock
B) what type of formation
C) what caused that 'rock' to appear as it does [afterall geology follows rules you know, even on Mars]

To say "it's just rocks" is probably the most singularly ignorant statement anyone could make



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I would like to thank the OP for sharing his/hers finds with us, the features are interesting, and you present your findings in a very good way. I appreciate it very much, and please keep on sharing stuff with the rest of us here at ATS!

And to Nohup:
I suggest that you take the time to read the post made by CX in this thread. There is a distinct different between your post and that one, and perhaps you will be able to figure out just what this difference is?
A little hint for you: Attitude...
Good luck.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60
And to Nohup:
I suggest that you take the time to read the post made by CX in this thread. There is a distinct different between your post and that one, and perhaps you will be able to figure out just what this difference is?
A little hint for you: Attitude...


Oh, gee, I'm so sorry if I hurt anybody's iddy biddy feelings. I'll try really hard to be supportive and encouraging in the next 50 pointless threads like this that pop up.


Carry on, please. Dazzle me with your "proof."

[edit on 25-9-2008 by Nohup]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
A) what type of rock
B) what type of formation
C) what caused that 'rock' to appear as it does [afterall geology follows rules you know, even on Mars]

To say "it's just rocks" is probably the most singularly ignorant statement anyone could make

A) Moon rock
B) Its the Moon
C) Moon impacts

Fine?

I mostly see just rocks in the pictures. Its very easy to start spotting patterns that arent even there. Well, aside from that "spire": its by far the most interesting moon "structure" I've ever seen, it really does look something constructed even if it turns out not to be. Now if we only had it in high res footage...



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka
Now if we only had it in high res footage...


Here ya go.
Hi Rez

1024dpi as opposed to 400dpi.

This is a raw scan. The first thing you'll notice is that it actually has less "detail" than the lower rez image.

This terrain is on the inner slope of Tycho. It's not surprising that it displays a lot of chaotic features, including faulting and collapsed lava tubes. If I was going to build a structure that covers 12 acres this is not the place I would do it.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
some of these look interesting and somewhat odd, but its just not enough to say that its definitely an artificial structure. there are amazing things that happen in nature. look at the symmetry and angles in a snowflake. hopefully something sharp and unambiguous will turn up one day



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Thank you Moonmine , really good pictures and work.
Starred and flagged.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Well your obligatory "it's just rocks" posts might have some validity if you could actually qualify them with..

A) what type of rock
B) what type of formation
C) what caused that 'rock' to appear as it does [afterall geology follows rules you know, even on Mars]

To say "it's just rocks" is probably the most singularly ignorant statement anyone could make


Actually, it's remarkably less ignorant than drawing circles, angles, and labeled question marks, and you don't need to answer ANY of your questions for it to be so.

Why, you ask? Why must the skeptics always get off so easily, while the believer's claims are held under such scrutiny?

A) We know rocks, hills, and formations exist on the moon already. We know natural formations can sometimes look like manmade (or intelligently made) phenomena. We have no real evidence that intelligently designed structures exist on the moon. So which is the more likely scenario: intelligently designed structures exist on the moon because people scan over NASA images and find all sorts of great quirks, not one of which clearly shows anything, or curious formations and tricks of shadows are at play?

B) The more fantastic the claim, the more evidence required to back it up. This is fundamental.

So. I can't prove they are rocks, and you can't prove they are structures. So going off sheer probability here, my claim is less ignorant than yours and requires less evidence to support. You already know this, though: it's why you're pouring over hundreds of NASA images looking for The One, while I sit back and enjoy the show


Cheers.

And MoonShine, you're proving the skeptics' points here about seeing what you want to see: not only are you claiming that these things are structures, you've even gone so far as to form a conjecture for the purpose of said buildings. A service station, really? I saw a beauty parlor, but your eyes must be better than mine.

If you had entitled this thread "Clear Structures On The Moon (Really Really Really With Sugar On Top)", I would have believed you. But alas, you didn't.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by thrashee]

[edit on 26-9-2008 by thrashee]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by thrashee it's why you're pouring over hundreds of NASA images looking for The One,


Actually I am busy with the new tapes found in a Mcdonald's And if I find THE one CNN gets first dibs...

Silly Lemming...



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by thrashee it's why you're pouring over hundreds of NASA images looking for The One,


Actually I am busy with the new tapes found in a Mcdonald's And if I find THE one CNN gets first dibs...

Silly Lemming...


Wait, I'm not a lemm--ooh, I get it, you're using a particular brand of ad hom to insinuate that because I don't see shadows like you do, I must be a brain-washed follower. Clever, that.

Point still stands. My logic here is impeccable, which, of course, is why you attacked me, and not my reasoning.

Good luck with your tapes from.....McDonald's. You know, I almost feel bad for you guys, it's like you're doomed from the start.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Usually this is my field. It stops to be once someone says that i am NOT free to say that all i see is a bunch of rocks. There's a serious anomaly, even recognized by nohup, why to don't start from there? I was going to gather all the images available with those coordinates, but since this is not a discussion but a BATTLE, well, find them by yourselves.

[edit on 27/9/2008 by internos]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   
I'd just like to respond to some of these arguments from a different perspective, if I may?

I mean... I've never understood why so many man/intelligent life form - made objects on Earth, Mars and the Moon are considered to be 'naturally' formed anyway??

With a lot of these objects we have absolutely NO proof whatsoever that Terra-Forming, Erosion, natural evolution has caused the changes and even the outcomes of face/statue like objects found in all places.

That's like saying "Sphinx?" "Oh man made, Egyptians. No way the wind could have just blown and with erosion and corosion and sun heat it formed"

"Face on Mars?" "Definitely wind... Erosion and Corosion. No way any man or life form, period; could have made that"



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Personally, I find theese types of threads very interesting.. Even if all I see is just "rocks" or "Natural formations"

If, for the moment, we accept the moon has no atmosphere, has 1/6 earths gravity, and is now basically geologically inactive.

I think that makes all theese "natural formations" even more interesting, It would mean that most of them were created millions to billions of years ago,(depending on what theory you lean towards, as far as the age of the earth and how the moon actually came to be)

My point being, is that Science has not yet explained in every detail how the earth and moon came to be.. let alone life, nor has it figured out the rest of the solar system, let alone the universe, What we have are some generally accepted "theories" that although they seem to explain alot, they are still "theories" not "absolute truths"

So If someone has a theory that there are artificial structures on the moon and they post it, fine, If all I see is geological formations, fine, at least we are "Searching"... Without absolute proof of one theory or another, there is always the possibility that either could be correct, or that both could be. or possibly, neither..

But to simply dismiss one theory or another out of hand, or to start insulting one side or another, to me seems assinine, and not what the majority of ATS. members are here for..

Now discussions of differing viewpoints, Is what I think may shed some light on what is actually going on "out there"

END RANT..
Thanks for your time, and good pics moonmine



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SideWynder
My point being, is that Science has not yet explained in every detail how the earth and moon came to be.. let alone life, nor has it figured out the rest of the solar system, let alone the universe, What we have are some generally accepted "theories" that although they seem to explain alot, they are still "theories" not "absolute truths"


I appreciate where you're coming from, SideWynder, but we can't simply dismiss what we know to be true and what is probable truth solely because science hasn't explained every single facet of the universe. That is like saying we can't really understand photosynthesis because we don't fully understand gravity. No one is stating that science is the end all, be all; it's just the best we can do right now. We carve out our knowledge of reality step by step, theory by theory, proof by proof.



So If someone has a theory that there are artificial structures on the moon and they post it, fine, If all I see is geological formations, fine, at least we are "Searching"... Without absolute proof of one theory or another, there is always the possibility that either could be correct, or that both could be. or possibly, neither..


Again, I appreciate your perspective, but there comes a point of diminishing returns with this logic. There could always be some possibility that something isn't quite what we believe it to be. That doesn't mean we can't utilize science to construct informal truths about the nature of things, nor does it mean we should entertain any and all theories, no matter how low the probability, just because one must always account for a what if.

To use an oft-mentioned analogy from the theist/atheist debate, if I say to you that the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster with herpes who plays a piano, you can't simply dismiss this theory because hey, anything's possible until proven wrong. Now obviously people shouldn't put any weight into this theory that is clearly fictional, but the point still stands--it's always possible.

No, I'm not trying to liken the probability of structures on the moon with the probability of our beloved spaghetti monster existing. The point, however, is to underscore exactly that: probability. When you can't absolutely prove one thing over the other, you naturally fall into the realm of conjecture. That doesn't mean there isn't a line between good conjecture and bad, however, and it doesn't mean you can't construct sound theories based upon current knowledge.

The problem with these photos is that they don't really tell us anything. Odd formations on the moon, the surface of which hosts many, many different shapes, craters, and shadows. So if someone here thinks something in this photo looks like a structure, that's fine...but to definitively claim that that something is a structure is an enormous leap, and thus requires an equally sizable amount of proof to back up the claim. We know the moon is littered with rocks and odd formations already. We have no reason to believe structures already exist on the moon aside from these pictures.

So again, it goes back to probable truth. No, I cannot absolutely prove that this photo is nothing but rocks. But quite frankly, my theory is far more sound based upon our current knowledge. Mind you, I'm not saying they can't be structures, just that there is no reason for me to believe they are based upon what has been presented here.

That was the point I was driving at before. Yeah, I know it's a giant buzz kill, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the cold, hard truth. Remember, we're not obligated to accept any and every theory just because there's always a what if and we're scared of being called close minded. That's why burden of proof always lies upon the one making a claim.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by MoonMine
 


MoonMine, these pics have already been posted by me long ago in my thread here..Uncensored NASA Moon Images!!

Please take some time to click the link. Most of the images you have shown are already posted in that thread. It's surprising you haven't seen this thread earlier!


Cheers!



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


Excellent reply Thrashee, this is what I was talking about, you explained your position. and did not "flame" me for what I had posted..

you posted what you thought were my relevent points, and answered them in a straight forward manner.. thank you!!!

Now, believe it or not, I do agree with most of what you said, you made some excellent points..

I understand that some theories have a higher probability than others.I guess I just "over simplified" my post for expediancy, (or possibly just plain old laziness)

My fault for not putting more effort into it.. (been a long week.LOL)
I agree with you on the "extreme claims" needing extreme proof. But this goes for both sides of the argument..

IE.. IT IS AN ALIEN SPACE PORT!!!!!! (because it kinda looks like one if you hold it thus, and enlarge it 10,000,000. x) or IT IS A ROCK!!!(because it can't be anything else)- yes it can, the probability is greater that it is a rock, but not 100%

so therefore instead of IT IS A SPACE PORT, lets go with could it be one??? or IT IS A ROCK, lets go with it is most likely a rock because......

Probably bad examples, but hopefully my point is comming accross..
And yes, I know that restating your position time after time,especially on the same pics gets irritating... but, at least give the op, a chance to express his/her/its.. beliefs, and then we can discuss the pros and cons of them, and try to figure out wich scenario is more likely..This is not directed soley at you Thrashee, just a "blanket" request to all who may wish to reply to the op's thread..


Again thank you for your intelligent reply and my appologies for going off topic a bit..

By the way, Thrashee, I gave you a star for your reply, just another way to let you know that I appreciate your contributions...
[edit on 27-9-2008 by SideWynder]

[edit on 27-9-2008 by SideWynder]

[edit on 27-9-2008 by SideWynder]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SideWynder
Probably bad examples, but hopefully my point is comming accross..
And yes, I know that restating your position time after time,especially on the same pics gets irritating... but, at least give the op, a chance to express his/her/its.. beliefs, and then we can discuss the pros and cons of them, and try to figure out wich scenario is more likely..This is not directed soley at you Thrashee, just a "blanket" request to all who may wish to reply to the op's thread..


Thanks, SideWynder. And thank you for not flaming me in turn--I often make myself an easy (and justifiable) target.

Truth be told, a lot of my sarcasm stems from the fact that every time I see a new post that claims a clear picture of structures, or aliens, or a UFO, I invariably wind up disappointed by what I find. In other words, I'd absolutely love to see compelling evidence of alien life, but so far the evidence has been less than stellar. So I think we agree--people should be careful with their claims, both skeptics and believers alike. If it looks like a structure, say that it looks like a structure, not that it is. If it looks like rocks, say the same thing.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Well I certainly see something, but whatever it is it's very unclear, but doesn't look natural.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
You sure read a whole heckuva lot into rocks. Good thing you marked them up with red and blue, but I still cannot see the nice sharp lines, ninety degree angles and "structure". You have drawn straight lines over objects that are for all intents invisible to the most of us.

I am not saying there are not any structures on the moon. I am saying that they are not shown on your pictures.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join