Lunar photo-enhancements reveal alien civilization evidence.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The trouble with threads like this is that some on here seem to get to carried away with it all and make strange assumptions on what they see and what can and can't be natural in their minds.

Not only that, there's a real problem here with not seeing the forest through the trees. Okay, assuming the boulder trails are "tracks" of some kind, where do they go? I mean, if you've got some transportation going on, it usually means something going from one place to another for a reason. Where are all these things going to or coming from?

I suppose you could say that they're coming from and heading to places that have since been destroyed by a meteor strike, but would that be kind of odd that these tracks would survive but the destinations wouldn't? Pretty convenient, no? It's like when you're looking on Mars for ancient civilizations. Wouldn't it make sense if there were any remnants or ruins they'd be sitting by the banks of an old riverbed? After all, that's where ours would be.

People just don't stop and think about the bigger picture. Unless it's really blurry. Then they think too much about it.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
... Okay, assuming the boulder trails are "tracks" of some kind, where do they go? I mean, if you've got some transportation going on, it usually means something going from one place to another for a reason. Where are all these things going to or coming from?...

There are only two tracks in the image that we can distinctly see the end of, and both of those have a visible boulder at the end (circled below). You can tell they are boulders and not craters by the shadow they are casting.

The boulders were probably blown that direction from an impact event.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
The boulders were probably blown that direction from an impact event.

I think that they just lost their support they had and just rolled down.

Apparently, people forget (or ignore) that the image from the OP shows part of the side of a crater, that's why we see boulders that have rolled down.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
The boulders were probably blown that direction from an impact event.

I think that they just lost their support they had and just rolled down.

Apparently, people forget (or ignore) that the image from the OP shows part of the side of a crater, that's why we see boulders that have rolled down.

You're right. That is also a very good possible explanation for rolling boulders.

Some members seem to think they are looking at boulders and boulder trails. Maybe someone would like to explain why they are convinced that is what they are observing. Are people thinking this way because what is quoted in the description has to be correct?

From lengthy research that I have carried out on this particular image I can say with 100% certainty that there are no boulders or boulder trails in the image whatsoever. What is forming the trails are long structures that have been constructed in such a manner as to appear as boulder trails when viewed from a great distance. This was probably implemented by the residents to act as a form of camouflage.

Anyway, since when do heavy boulders veer off from their track all of a sudden in an obtuse angle as can be seen in the right-hand side of the image (ringed in red)? Also, note that some of the trails split and veer off in different directions. If this was the case it would mean that the rolling boulder have split in two. Incidentally, there are no craters showing in the image. What appears to some as craters are in fact built structures.



Direct link: i985.photobucket.com...

reply to post by arianna

Anyway, since when do heavy boulders veer off from their track all of a sudden in an obtuse angle as can be seen in the right-hand side of the image (ringed in red)?

The image (overly enhanced, as shown in the post I am replying to) does not have a three-dimensional aspect to it.

It is a two-dimensional photograph....and, as such, is lacking in the proper orientation cues that we, who evolved in a gravity field on this planet, are accustomed to.

The angled track that is highlighted and referenced in the quoted text above is, if I am understanding what you refer to, easily explained by the fact that the wall of an impact crater is not uniform, and can have many different angles that are compared to the horizontal, or the vertical.

The "vertical" vector is what is best to discuss, here.....since it relates to the way the gravity of a bod such as the Moon will affect object in motion....whether on its surface, or in orbit.

This applies ot any celestial body large enough to have its own gravitational field, of course.


In a short explanation....the different "apparent" angle seen in that image is a track of a boulder that rolled down an incline that was, in three dimensions, not in the same plane as the other portions of the landscape (sorry...."moonscape"....) that was in the frame of that picture....of a crater wall.

A crater wall is NOT a perfectly flat, nor perfectly angled surface. It is erose, and complex.

Please refer to many other examples, to better understand? The principles are the same, regardless......only the lighting angles will vary...both on the Moon, or on Earth....depending on the way the sphere (orb) presents itself to the Sun, and the observers' point-of-view at the time.....


Apologies about this site, and the animation and sound when you first open it.....(Just mute your speakers, please!!) ....it is, after all, a site to encourage visitation....and, thus make a profit.......



www.meteorcrater.com...

Here is a very close view that was taken from the above image. I apologise for the quality.

This very close view shows the split in the "trails" as circled in red and yellow in the large image above.

Originally posted by arianna
This very close view shows the split in the "trails" as circled in red and yellow in the large image above.

You cropped the meaningful part of the original out of your image. As seen in the image below, there are more trails to the right of your cropped image.

Your cropped image shows three trails that you claim "split" apart. Actually, they did not "split" at all. They were three trails that overlapped. if you follow the three trails back to the right of where you say they "split", you can see that there are still three trails.



It seems like perhaps you are intentionally trying to deceive us by cropping that picture, and telling us that it is a picture of trails "splitting", when it is not.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

It seems like perhaps you are intentionally trying to deceive us by cropping that picture, and telling us that it is a picture of trails "splitting", when it is not.

I am not intentionally trying to deceive anyone. What you are seeing is the content at the right-hand edge of the enhanced image. What the crop shows is that the "trail" (ringed in red) veers off at an obtuse angle. This part of the image should be examined closely.

At present I am working on the areas to the left and right of this image. The new images will include part of this image.

Originally posted by arianna
I am not intentionally trying to deceive anyone.

Perhaps I was too hasty to suggest that you are cropping the images to intentionally deceive us. HOWEVER, by cropping the images, those images are in fact deceiving -- deceiveing, us AND deceiving you.

Originally posted by arianna
What you are seeing is the content at the right-hand edge of the enhanced image. What the crop shows is that the "trail" (ringed in red) veers off at an obtuse angle. This part of the image should be examined closely.

Here's a perfect example of how the cropped image is deceiving you. If you look at the more of the image rather than just a small portion, you would be able to answer your own question. You would be able to see that none of those three trails veers of at an obtuse angle, The three trails all look (more-or-less) straight. Sure, they curve a little, but I expect that since the Moon isn't perfectly smooth:




It's not just the cropped images that are deceiving you, but those over-enhanced images are only serving to deceive you. For example, you show us objects in those grossly over-enhanced images that you said looked like artificially constructed structures. But, if you did yourself a favor and looked back at the original image, you would plainly see that those objects are simply craters.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

It's not just the cropped images that are deceiving you, but those over-enhanced images are only serving to deceive you. For example, you show us objects in those grossly over-enhanced images that you said looked like artificially constructed structures. But, if you did yourself a favor and looked back at the original image, you would plainly see that those objects are simply craters.

With respect, are you qualified in the field of image recognition to make the above comments?

No, they are not craters, boulder or boulder trails. What you are viewing are many structures on the lunar surface.

it would appear that you are trying to confuse the issue by referring to another image. The so-called trail deviates from its track. Therefore, it could not have been caused by a boulder. In my opinion the trails are structures that have been laid out in this manner to create the appearance of something different when viewed from above.

Originally posted by arianna
No, they are not craters, boulder or boulder trails. What you are viewing are many structures on the lunar surface.

Could you please provide some real evidences that these are artificial structures instead of craters, boulders and boulder trails?

Thanks in advance.

it would appear that you are trying to confuse the issue by referring to another image.

It's the same image, as you know, the image is much larger than the small section we have been discussing, and the boulder tracks (or structures, or whatever) start and end out of that small section.

The so-called trail deviates from its track. Therefore, it could not have been caused by a boulder.

Even if the track deviates from the original direction it doesn't mean that it couldn't have been caused by a boulder, can't a rolling boulder be diverted from its original path by some change in the ground?

In my opinion the trails are structures that have been laid out in this manner to create the appearance of something different when viewed from above.

Do you have any theory for why would someone/something would build structures looking like boulder tracks on the walls of a crater?

Originally posted by arianna
With respect, are you qualified in the field of image recognition to make the above comments?

No, they are not craters, boulder or boulder trails. What you are viewing are many structures on the lunar surface.

if you say that the objects in this image are NOT craters:



...and the objects in this image are NOT trails with boulders at the end of two of the trails:


...then you are not doing a very good job analyzing these images.

Stop using that overly enhanced image for you analysis. That image has been so over-enhanced that the contrast has destroyed original information that was there, and is artificially creating dark geometric shapes that are not actually in the image.

Your overly enhanced image has lost much of its gray-scale gradient, so now all you are left with is mostly black and white pixels -- so of course you are going to see false angular shapes that aren't really there, but are instead caused by the bunches of black pixels set against bunches of white pixels.

Therefore, Instead of smooth grayscale transitions between bright and dark areas, you bet abrupt and angular-looking transitions.

The fact you don't recognize this mistake you made in the enhancement leads me to believe that you are not a very effective photo analyst.

it would appear that you are trying to confuse the issue by referring to another image. The so-called trail deviates from its track. Therefore, it could not have been caused by a boulder. In my opinion the trails are structures that have been laid out in this manner to create the appearance of something different when viewed from above.

No -- The image I showed includes the portion of your image that shows the "deviating trails". However, My image shows MORE of the trails, so you can see that the trails do NOT deviate, but rather they are simply three trails that generally go in a more-or-less straight line and cross over one another.

Your overly-enhanced and cropped image shows only the portion of the trails after they cross over each other. That's just a part of the story. My image tells the whole story -- it also shows where the trails came from before they crossed over each other.

Here's my image. It includes the area shown in your cropped image (it's the left-hand portion of my image):

Viewing the image above that contains the red and yellow circles and arrows I found out something by chance. When looking through both eyelids the image changed but the content didn't. The image took on a 3-D effect and the content appeared to come to life.

Give it a try and see if you visually experience anything. You may find it slightly hard to keep your eyelids apart at the correct distance.

reply to post by arianna


Perhaps it would be useful for you to refresh your memory, or even (if the first time) examine the phenomenon of Optical Illusions.

Adding....from the above Internet link, this one is quite appropriate here:
Can you find the dog?


Particularly interesting to research is how the brain perceives what the retina in the eye is sending to it.

There are many articles on Visual Perception to be found online. Even, of course, a comprehensive Wikipedia entry.

In the Wiki article, of interest is the links to Disorders/dysfunctions and Related disciplines

A great deal of informative reading and comprehension to be had, there......

I believe we are all being deceived by the appearance of the original image.

The original image gives the viewer the impression that the scene contains boulders and boulder trails whereas the enhanced version shows that what is really contained in the image is something completely different.

The view shown below has been rotated. I have indicated some of the interesting objects with yellow arrows. The red arrow is pointing to an object that would appear to be a tower of some description and is casting a shadow.

Would it be reasonable to say that if this aerial view was captured at a location on this planet many viewers would probably say that what they are seeing is part of a town or city scene?



Direct link: i985.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by arianna
I believe we are all being deceived by the appearance of the original image.

I disagree, I think you are being deceived by the "enhanced" image.

The original image gives the viewer the impression that the scene contains boulders and boulder trails whereas the enhanced version shows that what is really contained in the image is something completely different.

The enhanced version suffers from what has been said many times, it has less detail than the original, something that you, apparently, keep on ignoring.

Using your "enhanced" version to do the analysis is the same as trying to analyse a text in which some letters are missing, while you ignore the original text with all the letters.

Smtng lk ts.

The view shown below has been rotated. I have indicated some of the interesting objects with yellow arrows. The red arrow is pointing to an object that would appear to be a tower of some description and is casting a shadow.

Where is the shadow?

Would it be reasonable to say that if this aerial view was captured at a location on this planet many viewers would probably say that what they are seeing is part of a town or city scene?

No way, I don't see a thing that looks artificial.

Originally posted by ArMaP
No way, I don't see a thing that looks artificial.

On the contrary. I see a "Snoopy" head with sunglasses:

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

On the contrary. I see a "Snoopy" head with sunglasses:

I'm araid to disappoint your sense of humour. That's not a "snoopy". It's two very large objects.