NEW Moon Structures?

btimsah said:
Remember, it's the skeptic's who typically claim almost every unsolved UFO is a conspiratorial "secret military craft". However, when I or someone claim's that perhaps some evidence regarding ETI is secret, you call that crazy? :D Typical double standard and hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
I doubt "almost every unsolved UFO" is a military craft but it's certainly quite possible that some are. (I also doubt that sceptics say that)

We know that there are secret military craft on this planet. We do not know that there are aliens on the planet. Surely you can see that it is more likely.?

(no not part of the moon topic but should be mentioned anyway)
 
shaman_ said:
I doubt "almost every unsolved UFO" is a military craft but it's certainly quite possible that some are. (I also doubt that sceptics say that)

We know that there are secret military craft on this planet. We do not know that there are aliens on the planet. Surely you can see that it is more likely.?

(no not part of the moon topic but should be mentioned anyway)
Click to expand...

I agree that some could be secret crafts, but since we DON'T KNOW IF ALIEN'S EXIST we can't rule that out as a possibility. Hence, both are possible.
 
Then, IF, a person should happen to accept that ETI is real, and that some of these “flying saucers” are theirs and not secret military craft as those flying saucers have been seen all down through history, long before we had planes, let alone jets, what does it make them?

Now about structures, yes, the moon seems to have some very interesting potentials that may be structures, or the remains of structures. Yet it is my thought that most constructs would be done subsurface. Underground would be much easier to do and far more resource and energy efficient. Provided of course that there is a REASON to hang out for any considerable length of time?
 
Aircraft of our ancestors, an ancient civilization whos' last remaining people live in a bunker below the Himalaya mountains and occasionally travel around to see how has the humanity developed.

(Just one possibility and not from my imagination, and not less possible than the now common ET one, more ancient, than the now common ET one.)
 
Yes, that is a possibility Avatar.

Kind of reminds me of what it may have been like before the biblical flood wiped the planets surface, like Mar’s seems to have been catastrophically flooded a couple of times. Yet I think the highest probability remains that of ETI involvement in toto.
 
And I think that it is more probable that life on the Earth itself could have spawn an earlier civilization who could have inhabited the Earth and had a few more outposts in our Solar System (Mars included). It is more probable than an alien civilization from a far away star which has beaten or at least gotten very near to FTL travel.
That is my logic, but yet a slightly greater probability is that neither of these versions is true (at least imho).
 
craterchains (Norval said:
Kind of reminds me of what it may have been like before the biblical flood wiped the planets surface,
Click to expand...

There was no planet-wide flood. There was, however, many flood events that flooded the world of the Jew in the ancient Near East/Levant. Indeed, I wonder if our friend, The Devil Inside, could tell us what the ancient hebrew word was that was used in Genesis to describe the flood of the "world" and if that word was meant to describe the "planet" or simply the known "world?"
 
The flood myth comes from the ancient Shumeria (sp) and is not of a "jew" origin. The jews included that myth in their scriptures, like a lot of other myths and legends from other cultures.
What the our craterchained friend could link to is that ancient indians too have a myth which is very close to that of Noah, but no need to stick aliens in here,
first - we have to remember about archetypes (Jung);
second - it's not unlikely that the ancient Egypt had trade connections with civilizations/cultures in Americas (for instance, the samples of cokain in ancient egyptian tombs, the travel of Kon-Tiki, sculptures with negro features in South(?) America, etc.). Still no need for a planet wide flood,

..although those can be ancient refferences to the melting of glaciers at the end of the last Ice Age, America was a bit washed then (lenormous quantities of liquid water were released when a glacial "wall" melted (there were large lakes), it's well scientifically researched, I saw that in a Discovery Channel program about ice ages) (duno about, what happened in Europe), but I don't know of the time scale, when these glacial melt events took place, so I don't press on this. Maybe somebody impartial would like to find that out and inform us, I don't have the time now (exams).
 
Last edited:
I believe you're thinking "Sumeria" and the epic of Gilgamesh, which is nearly word-for-word identical to the Noah myth in some places.

But the authors of Genesis were Jewish, and therefore applied their own design to a pre-existing tale.
 
Ahhh, damn, Avatar, why nay say the FTL concept? You would probably have been one of those that would say that man can’t fly. And that man can’t go faster than the “sound barrier”? The discouragement of some posters in this forum smacks of intent. But then I don’t think you remember the good old days, lol, when we were full of ideas and didn’t accept the defeat of nay sayer’s but instead pushed on to mach 37 and more.

Uh huh skinny, just like Mars’s catastrophic floods were all just local events? Or maybe earth just doesn’t have enough water? Maybe it needs to have 9/10’s instead of 7/8’s coverage to begin with? (sorry, but FOCLMFAO again) Hell, just slip a bit of under sea land and see what happened to India? Picture that on a far bigger scale and then try to picture the wall of water THAT would create.
 
Yes, thank you for the correction, SkinWalker.

There were many authors for the Genesis. It's really a compilation of different myths, they were like editors who chose and took the best myths (with an accent to their own), but I am sure that many legends and myths that are included in Genesis are older than Judaism which isn't really that old.
The editors were jews, but it doesn't change the origin of the myth, they didn't invent/think of/maybe even witness it.
 
craterchains (Norval said:
Uh huh skinny, just like Mars’s catastrophic floods were all just local events? Or maybe earth just doesn’t have enough water? Maybe it needs to have 9/10’s instead of 7/8’s coverage to begin with? (sorry, but FOCLMFAO again) Hell, just slip a bit of under sea land and see what happened to India? Picture that on a far bigger scale and then try to picture the wall of water THAT would create.
Click to expand...

As usual, Norval, you seem to not consider all evidence before hurling pseudoscientific vomit.

First, it hasn't been demonstrated that all of the flooding on Mars was due to H2O, it could have been other liquids, though I lean toward the former.

Second, Earth hasn't the sedimentary/stratigraphic evidence to support a global flood. Period. In fact, stratigraphic evidence excludes the possibility of a planet-wide flood.

But then I wouldn't expect someone who compares the sound barrier to the "light barrier" to understand stratigraphy.
 
btimsah said:
Now you have a choice to make. Did I zoom in too show something that bug's you, or did I zoom in to show "nothing"?
Click to expand...

meh, nothing. Certainly not anomalous. It's probably just small areas of ground that are above the shadow of the ridge. This is especialy clear when viewed from the larger scale image.

Afterall the moon doesn't have an atmosphere to have particlas suspended in it. There is no air to carry dust/smoke/fog. It seems highly unlikely that any kind of smoke or fog on the moon would behave in the way it does on earth, rather it would sink quite rapidly despite the difference in gravitational force.

I could write out a diagram working out the rate of fall of particles arround the moon based on the moons gravitational pull. Basic Newtonian stuff. But as I have already stated this is unneccesary as there is no air to carry the particles (provide air resistance) so particles will not behave in this way on the moon.


On another note, I have never been hypocritical as I have never stated that UFO sitings were governmental conspiracies. Infact I don't believe in UFO sitings, I am not that gullible to take everything I see on TV or read in a newspaper to be true. I have never seen a UFO in my life.

And I have no problem with my childhood fantasies, they were quite delightfull. I believe a good immagination is very beneficial for the development of a childs creative thinking abilities. I just grew out of the idea that some fantasy is reality. If there were no distinction then all would be reality.

Perhaps the ultimate answere is that all is reality and that there is no distinction? hmm, this is unrelated sorry. Just typing to myself.
 
Last edited:
exsto_human said:
meh, nothing. Certainly not anomalous. It's probably just small areas of ground that are above the shadow of the ridge. This is especialy clear when viewed from the larger scale image.

Afterall the moon doesn't have an atmosphere to have particlas suspended in it. There is no air to carry dust/smoke/fog. It seems highly unlikely that any kind of smoke or fog on the moon would behave in the way it does on earth, rather it would sink quite rapidly despite the difference in gravitational force.

I could write out a diagram working out the rate of fall of particles arround the moon based on the moons gravitational pull. Basic Newtonian stuff. But as I have already stated this is unneccesary as there is no air to carry the particles (provide air resistance) so particles will not behave in this way on the moon.

I've heard contradictory thing's regarding the "gas" photo. First of all, it's not "small area's of ground that are above the shadow of the ridge. I've never had one person claim it was not a sort of fog or smoke.

On another note, I have never been hypocritical as I have never stated that UFO sitings were governmental conspiracies. Infact I don't believe in UFO sitings, I am not that gullible to take everything I see on TV or read in a newspaper to be true. I have never seen a UFO in my life.

And I have no problem with my childhood fantasies, they were quite delightfull. I believe a good immagination is very beneficial for the development of a childs creative thinking abilities. I just grew out of the idea that some fantasy is reality. If there were no distinction then all would be reality.

Perhaps the ultimate answere is that all is reality and that there is no distinction? hmm, this is unrelated sorry. Just typing to myself.
Click to expand...

The Moon does have an atmosphere, just not much of one. It's also geologically active, though from what I've read not much. Who know's.
 
Avatar said:
What geological activity?
Click to expand...

No clue as to what kind of geological activity..

But more importantly, you don't think this picture:

screenhunter0384as.jpg


Show's some sort of heat, smoke, dirt, dust, fog rising up from the ground? :eek:

This goes to show you how my "images" are not useless as some have stated before.. I've never seen an image like this before. Unless I just missed it..
 
btimsah said:
No clue as to what kind of geological activity..

But more importantly, you don't think this picture:

Show's some sort of heat, smoke, dirt, dust, fog rising up from the ground?
Click to expand...

No, I think it shows the partially illumnated top portion of some geological feature, the rest of which is in deep shadow.

You're just looking at a highly contrasted hole.
 
Well why don't you link to the real image so we can see for ourself...huh?

Or do you like to post images in such a way that they can be taken out of context?
 
blackholesun said:
Well why don't you link to the real image so we can see for ourself...huh?

Or do you like to post images in such a way that they can be taken out of context?
Click to expand...

Blackhole sun, I allready have linked to the REAL IMAGE.

Just to make sure we continue the game..

Here's the full size biggie:

EL-2001-00450.jpeg
 
Last edited:
phlogistician said:
No, I think it shows the partially illumnated top portion of some geological feature, the rest of which is in deep shadow.

You're just looking at a highly contrasted hole.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're saying... or writing. Are you saying the smoke effect is an illusion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top