We should scour the moon for ancient traces of aliens, say scientists

People that don't use NASA data for astrophysical study have no better source, or are not serious scientists. Name one space agency that isn't more cited as a source of data than NASA.

reply to post by Illustronic


And for that reason it would be crazy to believe everything they feed you! An agency controlled by rotten government and military force?
C'mon.. NASA has lied many times and tampered with photos etc. They cant be fully trusted. And about area 51.. how do you know whats going on there?

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

Interesting, doesn't Paul Davies trust his ASU colleagues?

And Robert Wagner, responsible for "image evaluation and assessment" in the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Science Operations Center? Doesn't he trust his own team, or does he know something that we do not?

This is a good point!

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

Interesting, doesn't Paul Davies trust his ASU colleagues?

And Robert Wagner, responsible for "image evaluation and assessment" in the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Science Operations Center? Doesn't he trust his own team, or does he know something that we do not?

This is a good point!

The researchers at Arizona State and LROC Ops are looking for other things. Because weathering on the Moon is an extremely slow process, if extraterrestrials visited it some time in the past three million years, their litter might still be detectable. The authors are merely suggesting that searching for it is a potentially valuable pastime that is ideal for crowd sourcing.

I often wonder, with 2000's technology, that Boeing, EG&G, Rockwell or some other company hasnt used their EMP tech, (the Triangles) and sent one up in the large cargo bay of the Shuttle, fly from the shuttle to the moon, do some investigating and the return to the shuttle hold, for the reentry to Earth....Seems cheap and simple to me.
Or have they actually done it..........errr is that a knock on my door.???
Surely all those shuttle missions purpose, wasnt just to climb about the ship in space and repair what shouldnt be broken, launch a few satellites and come back to Earth..providing you didnt disintergrate.
They flew 135 missions or so.......

reply to post by gort51

I often wonder, with 2000's technology, that Boeing, EG&G, Rockwell or some other company hasnt used their EMP tech, (the Triangles) and sent one up in the large cargo bay of the Shuttle, fly from the shuttle to the moon, do some investigating and the return to the shuttle hold, for the reentry to Earth....Seems cheap and simple to me.

Probably because the "EMP technology" doesn't exist... but that's a bit off topic.

Originally posted by DJW001

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

Interesting, doesn't Paul Davies trust his ASU colleagues?

And Robert Wagner, responsible for "image evaluation and assessment" in the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Science Operations Center? Doesn't he trust his own team, or does he know something that we do not?

This is a good point!

The researchers at Arizona State and LROC Ops are looking for other things. Because weathering on the Moon is an extremely slow process, if extraterrestrials visited it some time in the past three million years, their litter might still be detectable. The authors are merely suggesting that searching for it is a potentially valuable pastime that is ideal for crowd sourcing.

Says the guy with, "WATCH THIS SPACE," printed beneath a full Moon for his avatar.

reply to post by Pimander

Says the guy with, "WATCH THIS SPACE," printed beneath a full Moon for his avatar.

Exactly! I've been scouring the Moon for decades hoping to see a TLP. Even using photos from Lunar Orbiters, amateurs have discover lava tubes, etc. The more eyes, the better.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
"Online volunteers could be set task of spotting alien technology, evidence of mining and rubbish heaps in moon images"

I've been told by a few credible sources that once 'we' find irrefutable artifacts on the Moon, 'they'll' have no other choice but to acknowledge intelligent extraterrestrial life. Although I wish we could find intelligent life here on Earth first ---this is still good news! I have absolutely no doubt that we have been and are currently being visited by extraterrestrial!
By the way, on Coast to Coast tonight, NASA Ken Johnston will talk about Lunar Cover-ups So interesting timing for this article.

Hundreds of thousands of pictures of the moon will be examined for telltale signs that aliens once visited our cosmic neighbourhood if plans put forward by scientists go ahead.

Passing extraterrestrials might have left messages, scientific instruments, heaps of rubbish or evidence of mining on the dusty lunar surface that could be spotted by human telescopes and orbiting spacecraft.

Though the chances of finding the handiwork of long-gone aliens are exceptionally remote, scientists argue that a computerised search of lunar images, or a crowd-sourced analysis by amateur enthusiasts, would be cheap enough to justify given the importance of a potential discovery.

Prof Paul Davies and Robert Wagner at Arizona State University argue that images of the moon and other information collected by scientists for their research should be scoured for signs of alien intervention. The proposal aims to complement other hunts for alien life, such as the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (Seti), which draws on data from radiotelescopes to scour the heavens for messages beamed into space by alien civilisations.

more: www.guardian.co.uk...

I went to a vo-tech in HS and our teacher was a NASA engineer during the moon landings. One day we got on the topic of the moon, and he starts talking about some of the things he personally saw.

He was in mission control, and all he would say was "Let's just say that we were not the first ones to be there".

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Pimander

 

Says the guy with, "WATCH THIS SPACE," printed beneath a full Moon for his avatar.

Exactly! I've been scouring the Moon for decades hoping to see a TLP. Even using photos from Lunar Orbiters, amateurs have discover lava tubes, etc. The more eyes, the better.

I'm with you all the way mate.

I just thought it was funny how you were trying to balance your enthusiasm for this stuff, denoted by your avatar, with not encouraging people drawing the wrong "conclusions". Sorry, my English sense of humour again. At least I haven't offended anyone this time as I frequently do...

reply to post by Pimander

I just thought it was funny how you were trying to balance your enthusiasm for this stuff, denoted by your avatar, with not encouraging people drawing the wrong "conclusions". Sorry, my English sense of humour again. At least I haven't offended anyone this time as I frequently do...

Understood. One of the problems in "anomaly hunting" is that enthusiasts will seize upon what is obviously a scratch in the film and proclaim that they have discovered "railway tracks" a kilometer wide running in a perfectly straight line over all manner of terrain. If the two scientists who wrote the paper are going to volunteer to co-ordinate the effort, they must be prepared to wade through thousands of "false positives." On the other hand, the citizens who submit their observations need to be prepared to accept what trained planetologists have to say.

This project has exactly the same problem as UFOlogy; trained scientists are prepared to accept the possibility that something truly amazing stands to be discovered, but their standard of evidence is naturally very high. Untrained observers will be very quick to come to a conclusion, and refuse to believe a more plausible, mundane explanation when its offered. Many people, for example, do not understand how to differentiate a convex from a concave surface based on its shadow. When told that their "hovering orb" is just an ordinary crater, they will cry "cover up." The database will rapidly fill with simple, if earnest, mis-identifications, making it ever harder to spot the real gems. Meanwhile, there would be growing ill will between the serious researchers and the serious believers. Nevertheless, it's worth a try.

Originally posted by DJW001
This project has exactly the same problem as UFOlogy; trained scientists are prepared to accept the possibility that something truly amazing stands to be discovered, but their standard of evidence is naturally very high. Untrained observers will be very quick to come to a conclusion, and refuse to believe a more plausible, mundane explanation when its offered.

By a similar token, many untrained observers are very slow to understand why trained scientists, such as myself, do not believe the ETH has been disproven, despite the fact that most supposed UFOs have a mundane/prosaic explanation.

I agree with you regarding the pitfalls in terms of volunteers accepting the final word of a planetary scientist regarding false negatives. Clear criteria for potentially positive finds need to be established and adhered to. However, it would be impossible to please everyone.

I'd like to see some of the RAF and USAF photographic intelligence guys donating a few hours of their leave or off-duty time to this project. If anybody has an eye for spotting "artificial" structures from these types of image then it has to be them.

reply to post by Pimander

If anybody has an eye for spotting "artificial" structures from these types of image then it has to be them.

Yup.
They did a great job with finding WMDs in Iraq.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Forgive me for saying so, but it isn't Alien Technology we need to be looking for, it's Human technology. VERY old, VERY advanced to our way of considering past civilizations, but human nonetheless, IMHO.

Look for technology of any sort.

Then if and when it's found, ask the question "where did it come from?"

It may or may not be alien. It could be from some life forms on Earth, or possibly ancient Martians, or maybe from some life forms from outside our solar system. We shouldn't make any assumptions either way, rather we should study it and look for clues about its origin.

But I've seen no evidence we've found anything like that, despite the claims of Hoagland which have little credibility.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Pimander

 

If anybody has an eye for spotting "artificial" structures from these types of image then it has to be them.

Yup.
They did a great job with finding WMDs in Iraq.

In that case it was down to the fact that there weren't any. That was the false pretext for war - despite Rumsfeld's denials.

Rumsfeld rejects Iraq WMD doubts

reply to post by Pimander

Yes. I know that.
That was my point. I don't see any artifacts in the pictures presented on ATS and I didn't see any WMD in the pictures shown by Powell back then.

reply to post by Phage

I know, lots of them seem to just be down to what the observer thinks they see etc. Armap posted a couple that look like they are worth a second look, using other images of the same areas from other perspectives.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Both available on zorgon's site, here and here, respectively.

For me, it has to be worth trying something like this project. I don't think it will end the persistent arguments unless NASA say there is evidence of civilisation on the Moon but that's the nature of the beast.

reply to post by Pimander

I'm pretty sure that there are geologists (lunalogists? selenologists? astrologists?) who are going over the LROC images quite extensively. In fact it seems that in most cases it is after a particularly interesting image (rolling boulders, collapsed lava tube) is discovered by them and highlighted on the internet that the image shows up on ATS and the actual "anomalies" are found. The trouble is, the people that are finding the "anomalies" don't seem to have much idea of what they are looking at. Sometimes they don't know if they are looking at a crater or a hill.

reply to post by Phage

It isn't simple to say anything with certainty. It's such a minefield. I have looked at an image one day and thought, that definitely looks suspect (either manipulated or anomalous) and then looked at the same image another day and decided I can't see much now. At least I have a Geology A Level (I know that hardly makes it my main subject but at least I've studied it).

It's hardly surprising there is so much confusion. I've been observing the process you mention too and am becoming more sceptical of both sides of the debate all the time. I'm really not sure anyone is sure, if that makes sense - which is why I like the sound of crowd sourcing. It must be worth a try, despite the pitfalls.

Originally posted by Phage
I'm pretty sure that there are geologists (lunalogists? selenologists? astrologists?) who are going over the LROC images quite extensively. In fact it seems that in most cases it is after a particularly interesting image (rolling boulders, collapsed lava tube) is discovered by them and highlighted on the internet that the image shows up on ATS and the actual "anomalies" are found. The trouble is, the people that are finding the "anomalies" don't seem to have much idea of what they are looking at. Sometimes they don't know if they are looking at a crater or a hill.

The same folks not only can't identify "anomalies", if any are there in the first place, they can't even ID the people who are properly credentialed to research lunar (planetary photos).

The whole ATS response to photographic evidence is a pathetic joke.

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

The egg obviously came first!

And here the wisest philosophers and smartest scientists have been on life long quests searching for this answer and all they needed to do was log in here

Thanks illustronic. I'll get the memo out tout de suite

Then the wisest philosophers haven't really thought hard enough on this issue.

Chickens come from eggs. At some time in the past, there would have been the first creature that genetic biology and zoology would call a "chicken". The first true chicken of the species that we today call chickens. THAT first chicken needed to come from an specific egg.

...HOWEVER, the mother of that first "true chicken" that laid that particular egg would NOT have been a "true chicken". Rather, it would be some sort of proto-chicken -- i.e., a bird that is "almost" a chicken, but a different, older species. She would have been the mother of the first "true chicken"and would lay the egg that the first chicken hatched from, but genetically the mother would not quite be a "true chicken".

Therefore, the egg came first. The answer is scientifically obvious.



...Back on topic:

Originally posted by Pervius
They could start by releasing high resolution images of the moon to the public.


US/Russia/India/Japan/China all have taken high resolution images of the moon with their satellites....not 1 country has released high resolution images of the moon to the world.


The low resolution images Japan released were atrocious. You could take the same quality images with a $99 Kmart Telescope with a digital camera duct taped to it.

Check out the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) images, some of which are 1 meter per pixel, which is very high resolution for an image from orbit:

lroc.sese.asu.edu...

I'm sure there are spy satellites that do much better than that, but I don't think the military wants to hand over their secret technology to NASA for a Moon mission -- especially considering that 1 meter per pixel is good enough for NASA to provide the maps they need for further missions.