NEW Moon Structures?

[btimsah]

Good post, Ophiolite. Personally, I think fluid629 is back under a different user name.

You're wrong again Skin Walker. I was trying to figure out what the hell you meant by, "STFU Fluid" in an earlier post. At first, I thought you were just one of those angry debunker's.

Well, I suppose that's still correct but no I am not fluid. Never posted anything here cept this.

Now, ignore everything above and just respond with a cheap insult. Keep the personality consistant.

 

[SkinWalker]

Ha! You've presented nothing to debunk.

The worst suggestion you made was in your initial post where you said, "Looks like a damn spotlight.. I've tried to think of everything else it could be or how something else is fooling me, but it looks so damn obvious... lol"
It didn't occur to you that the shadows of the rocks in front of the "spotlight" are going the wrong way. Just to clue you in, the imager probably wasn't able to accurately show differences in bright/dark areas in one image, which causes the most brightly lit regions to become washed out. You get the same effect from a cheap digital camera if you try to take a picture of a subject both sunlit and shaded. Moeover, the shape of the "spotlight's" shadow offers its true form.

If you think me insulting or offensive, bear in mind that kooks spouting their speculative rants on a science board in search of mutual admiration societies whilst snapping at posters who are critical of their so-called "theories" gets tiresome. Fluid did much the same thing and didn't go away for some time. I'm still not convinced you aren't fluid, but I concede it is entirely possible you are two separate woo-woo's.

 

[btimsah]

I am not certain that you deserve the effort of a reply, but for the sake of entertainment, at least I'll give it a bash. Let's look at each point you raise.

Given my pointed ridicule of your position, this is a reasonable riposte. However, there are two points of factual error in this quote:
1. I am not stupid. My educational achievments and IQ establish this by any commonly accepted standard. I shall be charitable and assume you were merely being insulting.
2. I believe you have said these are alien structures. I quote you in reference to one of the photographs. "The one above features what can only be called a cut out area with bridges going across it." Bridges are very definitely alien to the moon!

Provide us with the details of the photographs: altitude, sun angle, lunar lat/long, scale etc and we can answer these questions. Without that data it is frivolous to even ask the question. I will take a provisional stab at your last two questions, however.
The object is lit so much brighter than its surroundings because it is standing above its surroundings, and may well be of a different composition. Neither of these, commonplace, circumstances can in any way be considered anomalous.
The illusion of bridges across a depression is a subjective interpretation of of an objective reality. The key word is illusion. You see this particular illusion, almost nobody else does. There is no case to answer.

So share with us, what is the point. If you wish to pretend to be a scientist, then pretend to offer your thoughts with clarity and concision, not vagueness and bluster. The inadequate quality of your presentation thus far informs all of us exactly where the laziness lies.

Give us something of substance and we shall provide a substantial reply.

I have NEVER written that they are alien structures. You assumed that, and still do.

As for anything of substance. The object you claim is a rock, is too linear to be a rock. Far to large and appears to be almost* perfectly oval in shape.

The object appears to be metallic on it's right side. Almost identicle to a thick coin.

NO I am not saying it has to be alien. I am saying that it does not look natural. Or to use a better term, not a rock.

Now, in the end it does not matter. I know you debunker's will never accept anything like this so why bother?

The Debunker's Delight:

#1.) The burden of proof is always on the woo-woo making a sensational claim, even when he or she is not making a claim. Cause them to get frustrated.

#2.) After a woo-woo gets banned or leaves a discussion, chant the following 3 times: “Mundane Claims Win The Day, Mundane Claims Win The Day, Mundane Claims Win The Day”.

#3.) None of you’re claims need to be proven, because you’re not the one making a sensational claim. Keep repeating this to yourself so as to make sure the woo-woo can’t ever challenge you.

#4.) If you let a woo-woo go, without impugning or attacking them personally, then you are not doing it correctly. You must find them stupid, and inferior.

#5.) Woo-woo’s are stupid and inferior.

#6.) A sensational claim is only wrong, if it’s presented by a woo-woo, or someone not as educated as yourself. If a fellow debunker presents a sensational claim, pretend the idea has merrit. (Take one for the team)

#7.) Always explain away a UFO as natural, remember you don’t have to prove anything. If you claim it’s something natural, the burden of proof is on them to prove it’s not natural. This way you can claim it’s anything.

#8.) The truth can be our enemy, if the truth supports a sensational claim. It’s then you’re job to distort or confuse the truth so as to support a more mundane explanation.

#9.) Don’t ever offer words of support, or agreement with a woo-woo. Constantly attack, harass and confuse them. Remember how much smarter, and more important you are than a stupid woo-woo.

#10.) Visit www.badastronomy.com and find a woo-woo to be destroyed. Search the banned list to reminisce and enjoy you’re past work. If the banned user’s list does not exist create one. Use this to compare other woo-woo’s to past ones.

 

[btimsah]

Ha! You've presented nothing to debunk.

The worst suggestion you made was in your initial post where you said, "Looks like a damn spotlight.. I've tried to think of everything else it could be or how something else is fooling me, but it looks so damn obvious... lol"
It didn't occur to you that the shadows of the rocks in front of the "spotlight" are going the wrong way. Just to clue you in, the imager probably wasn't able to accurately show differences in bright/dark areas in one image, which causes the most brightly lit regions to become washed out. You get the same effect from a cheap digital camera if you try to take a picture of a subject both sunlit and shaded. Moeover, the shape of the "spotlight's" shadow offers its true form.

If you think me insulting or offensive, bear in mind that kooks spouting their speculative rants on a science board in search of mutual admiration societies whilst snapping at posters who are critical of their so-called "theories" gets tiresome. Fluid did much the same thing and didn't go away for some time. I'm still not convinced you aren't fluid, but I concede it is entirely possible you are two separate woo-woo's.

I am sure Fluid was never as arrogant as you try to be.

 

[Ophiolite]

btimsah, you'd better respond to my post before you fire off again at SkinWalker, or I'll think you don't love me anymore! Or, are you about to retreat from the battle because, as SkinWalker says, you have nothing to debunk.
If you feel you are being ganged up on, you are not. In Carl Sagan's words extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hell, I'd settle for any evidence in this instance.


Edit: Obvious overlap in posts. I'm charmed.

 

[btimsah]

How.. or why would you automatically try to debunk them - If there's nothing to debunk?

 

[btimsah]

btimsah, you'd better respond to my post before you fire off again at SkinWalker, or I'll think you don't love me anymore! Or, are you about to retreat from the battle because, as SkinWalker says, you have nothing to debunk.
If you feel you are being ganged up on, you are not. In Carl Sagan's words extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hell, I'd settle for any evidence in this instance.


Edit: Obvious overlap in posts. I'm charmed.

I am not making an extraorinary claim, you wish I was. I am saying those objects LOOK LIKE they MIGHT be something of interest. And - If there's nothing to debunk - then WHY IN THE HELL have you guy's been debunking me?

Arrghg! Perhaps I just posted the images to get some calm discussion about natural events that could cause them and even suggest they are alien? Oh no!

 

[Ophiolite]

I have NEVER written that they are alien structures. You assumed that, and still do.

Can you read? OF course you can. Will you read? In this instance apparently not. Please consider your actual words.
"The one above features what can only be called a cut out area with bridges going across it."
I have been reading books and articles on the moon for over forty years, across the spectrum from peer reviewed research papers to National Enquirer speculation. Never , in all of those many thousands of words have I encountered a reference to bridges on the moon. The overwhelming, indeed the unanimous view, of those many investigators and reporters appears to be that bridges are not native to the moon. Therefore they are alien to the moon. Are you denying this, or are you rettracting your original statement?

As for anything of substance. The object you claim is a rock, is too linear to be a rock.

Now that is amusing. Do tell me where I claim the object is a rock. Again I shall be charitable and assume you are confusing me with one of the other posters. I don't mind being accused of thinking it is a rock. I should probably be offended if you suggested I thought otherwise.

The object you claim is a rock, is too linear to be a rock. Far to large and appears to be almost* perfectly oval in shape.
The object appears to be metallic on it's right side. Almost identicle to a thick coin.

I trained as a geologist. This training included interpretation of aerial photographs. I know what a ****ing rock looks like. This looks like a ****ing rock.
Where did you get this bizarre, uneducated idea that a rock cannot be linear? How can you tell it is far too large, when you have provided no information as to scale? Again, where did you get the bizarre idea that rocks could not be oval?

Your list, titled Debunker's Delight, shows that there may be a tiny vestige of hope for you. Address the points I have raised above, intelligently, and the hope will grow.

 

[blackholesun]

Well I wasn't trying to debunk anything. I was showing you why I think every you see is just a pile of rocks and boulders. Regardless of your stance on the shadows, its is wrong. It's a pretty simple task to look at the angles and see where a bridges shadow should be. Given that the ground like low area, that's all.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am not making an extraorinary claim, you wish I was. I am saying those objects LOOK LIKE they MIGHT be something of interest. And - If there's nothing to debunk - then WHY IN THE HELL have you guy's been debunking me?

Arrghg! Perhaps I just posted the images to get some calm discussion about natural events that could cause them and even suggest they are alien? Oh no!

Let me walk through your remarks.
Point1: You are making an extraordinary claim: you are stating that some perfectly ordinary photographs of lunar features are in some way anomalous. You have failed to demonstrate any anomaly in the examples you have so far provided. I certainly do find it extraordinary that you can make such claims in the absence of any evidence.
btimsah, you do not know me and have no way of independently determining my veracity, so you can choose to reject the next statements. I cannot readily prove them to be true. I am considered by my peers and superiors to have an extremely fertile imagination, to see possible relationships between quite diverse events/phenomena, to discern patterns in apparently chaotic data. I cannot see anything out of the ordinary in what you have presented. I have looked at your data with a wide open mind. For me this is not an either-or situation - hmm, there might be something intersting there. This is a non-event, a no-show; Elvis hasn't left the building, he was never there in the first place.

Point 2: I wish you were making sense.
Point 3: I think most objects on the moon are interesting, because they are on the moon.
Point 4: Pointing out that there is nothing there is not debunking as I understand it, unless you wish to re-define debunking.

 

[Tiassa]

Can we presume that the images are taken perpendicular to the lunar surface at the target point? I'm not sure we can.

The "bridges" image only looks like bridges if we make that presumption, based on the length of the light-colored stripes and another presumption that the half-ring shadow in the lower left of the "trench" actually represents a shadow in a trench.

However the "bridges" image in the smaller version actually implies an optical illusion ... I'm trying to remember what it's called so I can provide an online example, but I'm having trouble visualizing this basic concept at the moment. It happens when you attempt to represent three dimensions in two; some shapes suggest that they can be either "coming out of" or "going into" the frame. (Ah ... see "Ambiguous Cubes", or simply draw an outline of an opaque cube on a piece of paper.) The structure could easily be a mound instead of a trench. The detail you provided with the points labeled for those who missed them reinforces my perception that there's a mound in there.

As to the second image, I see what you're after, but I think it's just shadowplay. The brightly-lit side is one plane of a large structure that suggests a basic (polygonal) pyramid structure similarly implied in some sand dunes. What appears to be light "behind" the structure is just the result of anomalies in the basic shape. More interesting to me, in the large .tif at 5-70-h2c is that nifty liquid distortion effect. More seriously, though, the structure still looks like a basic pyramid shape.

 

[SkinWalker]

I am sure Fluid was never as arrogant as you try to be.

In otherwords, you agree with the assessment I posted (you quoted).

 

[phlogistician]

I have NEVER written that they are alien structures. You assumed that, and still do.

So they were made by humans then? Or, are you saying it's a natural formation that looks a bit like a bridge? If it's the latter, so what? The former is a preposterous idea, so what are you saying?

The object you claim is a rock, is too linear to be a rock.

Riiiight. And the image I posted? Those are too linear to be just rocks are they? See where I was going with that now?

NO I am not saying it has to be alien. I am saying that it does not look natural.

So not natural, not alien, that leaves man made. Eh? We went all the way to the moon, and the Apollo astronauts built a bridge to drive their rover over did they? Get a grip kid.

First off, the most fundamentally important thing when you look at an image, is to ask yourself 'What am I looking at'. Some of this is easy to answer, 'A picture of the Moon'. But then, the next question, is 'what scale is this image' and that has been touched upon. And boy, are you going to be more than a bit embarrassed when you do stop being lazy, and go find out that information.

But such is the way of the WooWoo. Too lazy to find out all the facts, a quick glance at an image, and then the flights of fancy come forth, before any validating facts are sought.

 

[Stryder]

Dood_2000,

I deleted all of your posts in this thread because firstly the Font was appauling and secondly the blant "GO TO MY SITE" in big fonts is an attempt to advertise. It's all very well pointing to a paper you've written, or having your website explain in more detail your thoughts, however such blatent advertisement is unacceptable for many reasons I'm not going to express here.

Please attempt to use a "Userfriendly" font in the future and refrain from abuse/advertisements.

As for this thread, I've pruned all of the posts to do with the bickering over the site and font of Dood_2000, perhaps you can get back to the discussion.

 

[btimsah]

Let me walk through your remarks.
Point1: You are making an extraordinary claim: you are stating that some perfectly ordinary photographs of lunar features are in some way anomalous. You have failed to demonstrate any anomaly in the examples you have so far provided. I certainly do find it extraordinary that you can make such claims in the absence of any evidence.
btimsah, you do not know me and have no way of independently determining my veracity, so you can choose to reject the next statements. I cannot readily prove them to be true. I am considered by my peers and superiors to have an extremely fertile imagination, to see possible relationships between quite diverse events/phenomena, to discern patterns in apparently chaotic data. I cannot see anything out of the ordinary in what you have presented. I have looked at your data with a wide open mind. For me this is not an either-or situation - hmm, there might be something intersting there. This is a non-event, a no-show; Elvis hasn't left the building, he was never there in the first place.

Point 2: I wish you were making sense.
Point 3: I think most objects on the moon are interesting, because they are on the moon.
Point 4: Pointing out that there is nothing there is not debunking as I understand it, unless you wish to re-define debunking.

The metallic side too the brilliantly lit object represents an artificial quality to it.

The above requires a person willing to see it. You are not willing to see it, so this board is useless.

I am trying to email a NASA person about the image - Amazingly I trust them more than people on here.

 

[Holmes]

...so this board is useless.

Does that mean you'll be leaving now??

 

[Ophiolite]

The metallic side too the brilliantly lit object represents an artificial quality to it.

The above requires a person willing to see it. You are not willing to see it, so this board is useless.

I am trying to email a NASA person about the image - Amazingly I trust them more than people on here.

You seem unable or unwilling to respond directly to any questions or points raised by myself and others in relation to your anomalies. This seems to me somewhat rude on your part, and so the first part of this post is reciprocal rudeness on my part. It has no redeeming social value, nothing of an educational character. (Well, perhaps a little bit on English usage.) It is pure self-indulgence, so you are free to ignore it, much as you have ignored all the facts relating to your anomalies.
"The metallic side too the brilliantly lit object represents an artificial quality to it." Your grasp of English grammar and spelling is as weak as your grasp of facts and scientific principal. If you have something important to say - and clearly you think these anomalies may be important - it behoves you to express your thoughts clearly and with minimal ambiguity.
Your first sentence in the above post is, I believe, meant to read "The metallic side of the brilliantly lit object has an artificial quality to it." There. Was that so difficult?

"The above requires a person willing to see it." I guess my natural intelligence, coupled with scientific training, just inhibits my willingness.

"You are not willing to see it, so this board is useless."
Wow! I had no idea I had so much influence. My inability to trick my brain into seeing something that isn't there has rendered the entire board useless. A perfect demonstration of your flawed logic, or at best your misapplication of irony.


"I am trying to email a NASA person about the image - Amazingly I trust them more than people on here."
At last something we can agree on. My only question is, why would you have ever thought otherwise. Lets look at the facts.
NASA person:
Professionally trained
Expertise in specific area of interest
Identified by name
Qualifications and experience a matter of public record
Accountable for responses given to members of the public
SFN poster:
Training diverse and often of mediocre quality
Unlikely to be expert in specific area
Wholly anonymous
Claims of expertise and experience not verifiable
Free to say anything regardless

Naturally you should trust a NASA person more than this forum. The other great advantage of the NASA person, from your perspective, is that they will laugh behind your back rather than in your face.

 

[lek]

The one above features what can only be called a cut out area with bridges going across it.
...
Looks like a damn spotlight.. I've tried to think of everything else it could be or how something else is fooling me, but it looks so damn obvious...
...


...I've never said these are alien structures. Haha.. figures. Embarrassed?

You see bridges and spotlight which obviously werent built there by humans, yet you are amazed why folks interpret that as talking about alien stuff?

I was asking what are they? If I get a bunch of, "looks like rocks" that does not tell anyone a damn thing.

"Looks like rocks" is somehow more futile explanation than looks like an "anomaly" (see woo-woo credo for definition of anomaly anomaly #14)

Gort, NASA has to release these images. They are our images. However, I do believe they can censor some images due to matters of national security.

But for some reason they FORGOT to censor these particular images?

The mere fact that you so quickly assumed I was claiming anything speaks volumes about the jadded, arrogant nature of most of the debunker's on here.

Your method "I didnt claim anything" while stating observations and simultaniously denying any natural cause for it, is well known...

The metallic side too the brilliantly lit object represents an artificial quality to it.

The above requires a person willing to see it. You are not willing to see it, so this board is useless.

Metallic is unnatural?

I'm willing to see a lot of things, does that mean everything i imagine or see is real? Can you name anything that by this definition CAN NOT be real?

 

[btimsah]

Lek, I'm allready done here.

Nothing will be concluded in you're mind, that's not allready been concluded. Same with every other debunker on here.

I'm allready past trying to prove anything to you, or anyone else on here.

Have a nice day!

 

[Star_One]

Unfortunetly these chronic skeptics seem to love debunking (or thinking they are anyway) structures on planets, their answer will be "ROCK" what ever you post.

I remember once someone used to post some ufo information, the skeptics could not 'debunk" it so they banned him

Keep it up though Btimsah, there are some people on here who have a open mind.