Moon cities buildings evident near Tycho crater.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

Nice. If these images are really from NASA and really of the moon it is just more smoking gun evidence that the disinfo agents will attempt to explain away, don't try to tell them the emperor is not wearing clothes.

If you blow the first pic up even a little you will see there are way too many right angle, square and rectangle shapes.

I know some crystals form rocks with right angles and certain shapes but not like this, not this irregular and not this size. Rock crystals are usually clustered around a center and there is usually is some symmetry, not to mention a much smaller scale. The walls of these old buildings are many dozens of yards.

Good job. Don't hold your breath for any official recognition.



Please do not trot out the sad comparison between these buildings on the Moon and the Giants causeway. First, like I said, the Giant's causeway rocks are clustered around a center and have some symmetry. Secondly, they are only a fraction of the size of this building site on the moon which stretches hundreds of yards or maybe even more. NOTHING IN COMMON. FAIL.

Good premise, but the picture was too blurry and pixilated for me. Just couldn't say conclusively.

I have a related question, not to hijack the thread, but there were/was a tower on these threads somewhere that cast a huge shadow. Questions about being artificial etc. I was wondering if anyone had those pics and new if we've taken better pictures with our orbiters up there of that area. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: AthlonSavage

Nice. If these images are really from NASA and really of the moon it is just more smoking gun evidence that the disinfo agents will attempt to explain away, don't try to tell them the emperor is not wearing clothes.

"Smoking gun evidence" such as that hill that you insist is a UFO?

If you blow the first pic up even a little you will see there are way too many right angle, square and rectangle shapes.

No, really? When you zoom in on an already poor quality, low-resolution image you'll see a lot of right angles? I've got two words for you, pal: compression artifacts.

I know some crystals form rocks with right angles and certain shapes but not like this, not this irregular and not this size. Rock crystals are usually clustered around a center and there is usually is some symmetry, not to mention a much smaller scale.

Given that you can't tell the difference between a hill and a UFO, I don't think it's wise to put much (or any) faith in any geological claims you make.

Good job. Don't hold your breath for any official recognition.

Don't worry, I won't.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Remember X as a digital image it is displayed as pixels which are square in shape, try this draw a circle with a paint package on your computer microsoft paint or any software like that.

If it's high enough resolution it looks like a smooth circle but save it as a jpeg or zoom in



Not smooth looking and look a circle with square edges & jpeg artifacts this little piece of education was brought to YOU free of charge.

Also did you bother to check the resolution of your moon image to see how big those ROCKS are

a reply to: wmd_2008

OMG! That's probably the clearest photographic evidence of a flying saucer I've ever seen!

Oh, okay, first they are crystal rock formations and next it is due to compression artifacts? Can we pic one?

Also, if it is just compression artifacts, why do they occur only in certain areas? Wouldn't they occur in all areas?

Hi Athlon Savage I think your onto something Sir! Nice thread!

If I may, I'd like to add this contribution to your thread,hope I'm not hi-jacking here.

I've been in talks online with a Guy who is ex US military (I posted a thread on this recently) He has many,many, videos and images ranging from UFOs,weird stuff and also His very own Moon photos.Below is one of the latest images He has sent Me.I have included the original and the versions that I have put through a program.I couldn't see what He was showing Me until I reworked the originals-what I saw got me quite excited..here it is..

These all remind me of bunkers/buildings/hangers built into the rock face and they must be huge.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Images from Google Moon are not the best source have you any idea of the resolution of the images ie pixels/ mtr ?

a reply to: EndOfDays77

Why don't you email your mate find out the area of the Moon and we can check his picture and find out the sizes shouldn't be a problem should it

I've just emailed Him..so fingers crossed,if I can get anymore on this I'll start a thread up perhaps.So far the images keep coming in and it is hard to keep track of.

a reply to: wmd_2008

originally posted by: EndOfDays77

These all remind me of bunkers/buildings/hangers built into the rock face and they must be huge.

Here are some nice close ups of the area you show

First at 1000 mtr/pixel



Next 64 mtr/pixel



No doorways.

It's shadows due to the angle the Sun hits the surface.

What is the source of your pictures WMD? Are they google or NASA out of interest?

What caught my attention in the pics I posted was that each of these 'hanger doors' have near identical markings on the 'front'..there were a few other very curious abnormal shapes/things that I noticed as well that's why the original is there,for all to try,it's likely someone can bring out more clarity!

I emailed Him btw and He didn't know where He was imaging

a reply to: wmd_2008

originally posted by: EndOfDays77
What is the source of your pictures WMD? Are they google or NASA out of interest?

What caught my attention in the pics I posted was that each of these 'hanger doors' have near identical markings on the 'front'..there were a few other very curious abnormal shapes/things that I noticed as well that's why the original is there,for all to try,it's likely someone can bring out more clarity!

I emailed Him btw and He didn't know where He was imaging

a reply to: wmd_2008

Were do you think Google gets their Moon pictures from

It's from the LRO site.

a reply to: EndOfDays77

The close up area actually covers the Taurus-Littrow area covered by Apollo 17 (centre-left), and it has been well covered by many missions from the US (including the LRO, Lunar Orbiter and even Hubble), as well as China and India, not to mention the numerous Apollo images of that area.

There aren't any buildings or hangars.

originally posted by: EndOfDays77
What is the source of your pictures WMD? Are they google or NASA out of interest?

Google has not (yet) sent their own spacecraft to the Moon to take pictures. Google uses NASA's pictures.

And here is the view using Google moon, tilted to show a similar angle of view:



and here's the close up:



Here's another amateur telescope view

sites.google.com...

I understand that pixilation may cause some features to look like squares or rectangles, but I do not see how pixilation could cause the appearance of walls, as seen in this close-up of one of the original pictures:

I'm not convinced by any of the responses ^^ given in a relation to the moon images I provided above. NASA and Google have been complicite in covering up sensitive info;the list is as long as your arm.The amateur photo is also not conclusive.

This chap now has a state of the art telescope and camera and I can't wait to bring the images back here and watch the squirming.

a reply to: EndOfDays77

The Hubble has a 2.4 mtr mirror (8 feet) in orbit above the Earth's atmosphere it can resolve objects just under 300 ft across at the distance of the Moon, SERIOUSLY what do YOU think your friends telescope can resolve!

Plenty of sites on the net if you like to do some maths.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
I understand that pixilation may cause some features to look like squares or rectangles, but I do not see how pixilation could cause the appearance of walls, as seen in this close-up of one of the original pictures:

X read the text at the bottom of your image then go find out the specs of the cameras used on the that mission.

SELENE (.Selenological and Engineering Explorer)

aka Kaguya

Once you guys LEARN something regarding how to OBJECTIVELY look at images find the source and then research the instruments used YOU will then know what the limitations are.

You guys always claim others never look outside the box BUT in reality you only ever look at one ie every thing is a lie or a cover up.

What's more comical is the belief that some clown on youtube (there are many) can use a small telescope and reveal something new.

Many amateur astronomers use equipment like THIS

Strange that people with equipment like that NEVER see these things or the members on here into astrophotography never do either.

Do yourself a favour learn a little about digital imaging, cameras & optics then you stop making silly assumptions.