Hey pseudoz! Look at this cool image;
You can go here to learn more: http://astronomyiscool.blogspot.com/
You can go here to learn more: http://astronomyiscool.blogspot.com/
Cool Moon Image: #99
- Thread starter btimsah
- Start date
DwayneD.L.Rabon
Registered Senior Member
locked
Last edited:
Yay more "Look it's an alien stucture!" woo-woo ism's from Btimsah.
I did miss these so, you had quite a drought there.
Aren't these some of the same pictures you have shown before though? I didn't see anything really new here.
Most of these pictures are extreme close ups. So the "smudging" that the web-page author says is "covering" up whatever is actually there is most likely the actual resolution limits of the camera taking the picture.
Dwayne, just to give you some background, btimsah has claimed time and time again that there are alien stuctures on the moon, and that these stuctures are not being investigated by NASA. Everytime he shows a picture, it's an extreme closeup of some fuzzy natural formation that looks like something else because of extreme shadows (because of vaccuum) or elevation changes.
I did miss these so, you had quite a drought there.
Aren't these some of the same pictures you have shown before though? I didn't see anything really new here.
Most of these pictures are extreme close ups. So the "smudging" that the web-page author says is "covering" up whatever is actually there is most likely the actual resolution limits of the camera taking the picture.
Dwayne, just to give you some background, btimsah has claimed time and time again that there are alien stuctures on the moon, and that these stuctures are not being investigated by NASA. Everytime he shows a picture, it's an extreme closeup of some fuzzy natural formation that looks like something else because of extreme shadows (because of vaccuum) or elevation changes.
Squeak22 said:
This is the pseudoscience area, so this is a bit of a smoke screen.
Well, I'm glad you did.
No, never posted this one. Though, in those particular frames there are a lot of similar looking area's which light up like christmas tree's.
This is merely a cool image of the far side of the Moon, from EXTREMELY high resolution .tiff images in order to illustrate the hidden features we never (untill now) see.
What do you think the image is showing? What is the name of the feature in the image? Do you think it's interesting enough (From a geological standpoint of course) to warrant a name and photo's in books?
I suppose that is the frustration I have with these images. Even if they are JUST interesting geological formations, they are virtually non-existant and never mentioned. Why?
It's not "interesting". It's probably just a hill or rock formation.
Also, why should they be spending money on investigating stuff on the moon? We have mapped the moon by radar several times, and there are much better things for scientists to be doing, like putting people on Mars, or seeing what's under the ice on Europa!
Also, why should they be spending money on investigating stuff on the moon? We have mapped the moon by radar several times, and there are much better things for scientists to be doing, like putting people on Mars, or seeing what's under the ice on Europa!
:bugeye:
You seem to assume that just because it MIGHT be a rock formation or hill - then it's not interesting. Talk about a fallacy. First of all, you are just guessing. Secondly if it IS a rock formation/hill then it's still interesting. Lastly, why is such a cool feature unnamed and never mentioned?
(EDIT) - As for mapping the Moon. I was referring to these cool findings back in the 60's. Although we are going to WASTE our time (according to you) by mapping the Moon again, before we waste even more time, by sending astronauts to build a space station on the Moon. Just a big waste of time?
You seem to assume that just because it MIGHT be a rock formation or hill - then it's not interesting. Talk about a fallacy. First of all, you are just guessing. Secondly if it IS a rock formation/hill then it's still interesting. Lastly, why is such a cool feature unnamed and never mentioned?
(EDIT) - As for mapping the Moon. I was referring to these cool findings back in the 60's. Although we are going to WASTE our time (according to you) by mapping the Moon again, before we waste even more time, by sending astronauts to build a space station on the Moon. Just a big waste of time?
We have to put a base on the Moon to be able to get to Mars anyway.
Should we name every hill/valley/rock? I think not.
How could you refer to these findings in the 60's when most of the pictures you are referring to are from recent photos?
I think Skinwalker put it best a long time ago; Just because you think some shadows are interesting doesn't make them so.
Also, building a space station on the moon is mostly for MINING the moon for valuable minerals and providing a manufacturing spot for deep space missions. That's not "Wasting our time".
How could you refer to these findings in the 60's when most of the pictures you are referring to are from recent photos?
I think Skinwalker put it best a long time ago; Just because you think some shadows are interesting doesn't make them so.
Also, building a space station on the moon is mostly for MINING the moon for valuable minerals and providing a manufacturing spot for deep space missions. That's not "Wasting our time".
Squeak22 said:
No, we should not. That's not what I asked. I asked why this was not named.
This image is from the Lunar Orbiter missions, which did take place in the 60's and are not recent photos.
Huh? This has very little to do with shadows. However, the Astronauts (when orbiting around the moon) often got excited about surface features when viewed under low sun angle. The reason is because THE SHADOWS helped to reveal more surface detail. Thus MAKING it more interesting. LOL.
I agree 100%. I'm glad we are returning to the Moon. I thought you were the one saying we should not be going back to the Moon and re-mapping it - when we are (I believe) going to do just that. Maybe I misunderstood.
It's important to understand that I am not saying this is an alien structure. I am merely illustrating some of the amazing surface detail the Lunar Orbiter (and some Apollo) images give us.
Some of the more amazing images of the Moon have never been seen. This is just one of the more interesting area's which I feel deserve more attention.
For instance, the Astronauts photographed glass in the ground. I was thinking that perhaps ice and glass are what makes certain parts of the Moon light up as it does. Also, that perhaps TLP (Transient Lunar Pheonomon) has something to do with ice and/or glass as well.
It does not have to be alien, in order to be interesting or anomalous.
Some of the more amazing images of the Moon have never been seen. This is just one of the more interesting area's which I feel deserve more attention.
For instance, the Astronauts photographed glass in the ground. I was thinking that perhaps ice and glass are what makes certain parts of the Moon light up as it does. Also, that perhaps TLP (Transient Lunar Pheonomon) has something to do with ice and/or glass as well.
It does not have to be alien, in order to be interesting or anomalous.
btimsah, the reason everyone is saying "it's not an alien thingy" is because we are so used to you claiming these things are alien/conspiracies. It's kind of a reflex action.
btimsah said:
You answered your own question here. This is just a hill/rock with shadows, therefore it should not be named.
btimsah said:This image is from the Lunar Orbiter missions, which did take place in the 60's and are not recent photos.
Sorry I thought some of them were from the SMART-1 probe that took pictures last year. I currently can't find an archive of those photos on the web right now.
btimsah said:
This has everything to do with shadows. Many of the pictures that are on that webpage, can be explained with some clay and a harsh light. The first image on that page is just a mountain range with a couple of craters in it. The shadows that "can't be there" can be in that situations.
If you are really that interested in all this, shell out the money and buy on of the moon model programs, that have the topology of the moon. They even have neat 3D models.
btimsah said:I agree 100%. I'm glad we are returning to the Moon. I thought you were the one saying we should not be going back to the Moon and re-mapping it - when we are (I believe) going to do just that. Maybe I misunderstood.
Yes I am saying that remapping the moon is a waste of time just to do it. We should be doing mineral survey's and finding out what's below the surface, (H20, Ti, etc.) building permanent bases there for manufacturing, and going outward from there, not waste our time looking at the surface that we've been studying for around 500+ years. (Ever since Galileo started to in the 1600's)
The reason for the remapping...
Maybe Aldrin wanted his golf balls back?
It's also possible that perhaps the remapping is looking for changes on the surface like new impacts or potentially distortion of the moons shape caused by gravity through the moon orbiting the earth. (Although it would be less of a factor in comparison to somewhere like Saturn's moon 'Pheobes'.)
With the above covered, the only other vantage to a remap is looking for a nice place to land or place a settlement. (Just remember any visits to the moon will obviously have a "Mind your head" sign on the door you enter the settlement with, it won't be for the door frame but due to the approx: 1/6 Gravity.)
Maybe Aldrin wanted his golf balls back?
It's also possible that perhaps the remapping is looking for changes on the surface like new impacts or potentially distortion of the moons shape caused by gravity through the moon orbiting the earth. (Although it would be less of a factor in comparison to somewhere like Saturn's moon 'Pheobes'.)
With the above covered, the only other vantage to a remap is looking for a nice place to land or place a settlement. (Just remember any visits to the moon will obviously have a "Mind your head" sign on the door you enter the settlement with, it won't be for the door frame but due to the approx: 1/6 Gravity.)
Last edited:
Squeak22 said:
Do you know how many hills, or rocks (with shadows) are named? Why not this one? That is simply not much of an answer.
Smart-1 (ESA) site has been rather bad at releasing images. I think, in total there are about 4-5 images which have been produced from Smart-1. I get the impression they wont be offering a searchable database of images online.
I am not talking about THAT WEBPAGE. I'm talking about this particular image. However, if you like the mountain-range photo: The object which is (supposed) to be causing the shadow can be seen. It's a poorly drawn shadow in my opinion. Especially when zoomed in. The issue is not really even the shadow, as much as the interesting structural features which protrude from underneath the (I believe) fake shadow.
I wish I could send my own satellite up there. I would only need a few photos of some select areas.
I thought NASA is going to remap it so we can find a surface for our buildings. Also, the last time the Moon was mapped was (again) in the 60's. I don't believe it's too much to think it might be needed by now.
I don't have any particular background in Astronomy or space sciences, so I am able to view things differently than a scientist can. I don't have the same threshold for evidence.
But, is it really that strange to suggest we may have photographed ancient alien structures on the Moon? The thing I've always come back to is this; Once ETI is proven to exist, surely their structures exist/existed somewhere. Will we, then, have to go back and look? Will anyone ever accept that NASA would have missed such a thing? You, and others here don't accept that now. Why, after ETI is discovered, would anyone accept it then?
There are SO many unknowns in outerspace that I find any declarations about what can and cannot exist and what you can and cannot find rather empty.
I'll give you an assignment. Do you think this is a rock or hill?
I have only a few ideas.
#1. A metallic surface with objects on top.
#2. A metallic sub-surface feature with inset features.
#3. Who the hell knows?
#4. Bizzare moon bacteria which caused the Astronauts to be in quarantine.
I have only a few ideas.
#1. A metallic surface with objects on top.
#2. A metallic sub-surface feature with inset features.
#3. Who the hell knows?
#4. Bizzare moon bacteria which caused the Astronauts to be in quarantine.
Last edited:
Actually it looks like bacteria to me.
Communist Hamster said:
lol
Okay, fair enough.To me it looks like a metallic-like surface, with some sort of objects on it's surface.
Of course, when you rotate it, it becomes difficult to know which way the shadows should go. You can't tell if they should be convex or concave.