NEW Moon Structures?

[Tiassa]

I don't actually know the altitude of the Cydonia face image. Thus I have no clue of its scale. As such, I cannot estimate what volume of dust would have to be deposited on the thing to make a significant difference. If it's a relatively small object, sure. If it's several miles across ... I doubt it. Although I don't know anything about the relationship between "dunes" and gravity. There could be plenty of loose sediment on and around that thing, and the original face picture was just one of those statistically-bizarre coincidences.

My personal take on all of this, and it's one I do wish I could communicate more clearly to some of the anomaly enthusiasts, is that I'm sure there's life out there. And it may well have made its way through the solar system. But there are people out there postulating about the grooves on Phobos; I came across one in my search for the image that had to do with the probes. It speculated that whoever was responsible for the disappearing canyons on Mars had actually abandoned one base and moved into a hollow Phobos. It doesn't have to be every damn rock and shadow in the system. I'm more willing to play a version of Pascal's Wager here. No, I don't believe that Stonehenge was a landing site for a flying saucer, despite its shape and theoretic appearance when intact. On the other hand, I won't be terribly surprised if it turns out to be so. Truth is stranger than fiction, and I read Clive Barker and Ray Bradbury, so the Universe has one hell of a standard to beat. And it will. It does every day, in fact; I just don't get to see it all.

If there's a monolith, or artificial satellite, or alien base, or even a 30-km spotlight out there, well, it's a big Universe, and for our purposes a big solar system. We can't even find weapons that we know are there, a 6'4 Arab with a lethal streak, nor an historically-valid hint of Jesus. That we're going to accidentally stumble across evidence of advanced civilization in the Universe where we didn't expect it (maybe the Egyptians built the spotlight, since it wasn't aliens) accords to a certain degree with S.E.P. theory, but no amount of jumping and blinking and wagging the head will bring about what legitimately isn't there. We'll find it, eventually. In the meantime, I don't know what bothers me more, the "wasted resources" of inquisitive minds enraptured by a new religion, or the embarrassing spectacle some folks raise in the process of making the idea of extraterrestrial life seem like a notion left for whacked-out fringies.

Right now, all I can think of is a droning chant: "Craaaab People ...."

 

[btimsah]

TIASSIA this is for you!


So basically, you want me to prove or claim it is something to better enable people to debunk it? Sure, I'll give it a shot!

Okay! - It's an alien-built object. An "alien structure" as witnessed by Karl Wolfe when he stated the following:

"We walked over to one side of the lab and he said, “By the way, we’ve discovered a base on the backside of the moon.” I was a little terrified, thinking to myself that if anybody walks in the room right now, I know we’re in jeopardy because he shouldn’t be giving me this information. Then he pulled out one of these mosaics and showed this base on the moon which had geometric shapes—there were towers, there were spherical buildings, and things that looked somewhat like radar dishes, but they were very large structures".

As he states above - THEY WERE VERY LARGE STUCTURES. Using his testimony I will present the following, just for giggles and because this is the internet!

Towers:

Radar Dishes:

Both these images are from the same images..

 

[Blindman]

More proof of aliens..


<img src="http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3634&stc=1">
What more do you want..
Crackpots rule.

 

[Ophiolite]

An "alien structure" as witnessed by Karl Wolfe

http://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/boy.html

 

[btimsah]

More proof of aliens..


<img src="http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3634&stc=1">
What more do you want..
Crackpots rule.

Considering that the majority of the population believes ETI exist's, and that their vehicles and person's have been witnesses for thousands of years it's not crazy to think you could find some evidence of them on alien worlds.

The mere fact that you think I'm crackpot because of this say's a lot about you, and you're mindset.

You seriously need to consider why you post such a thing. What is it that drives you to consider those who believe in Aliens to be crackpots?

The funny thing is - you probably believe in alien intelligence, yet still consider UFOERS crackpots

 

[Blindman]

Considering that the majority of the population believes ETI exist's, and that their vehicles and person's have been witnesses for thousands of years it's not crazy to think you could find some evidence of them on alien worlds.

Sorry I didn't know that, Ill be more careful next time.

 

[Stryder]

Btimsah,

Humans have acknowledged alsorts of sightings for thousands of years, and not all of them alien. afterall there is the over speculated occurance of ghosts, angels, demons and strange but always "true" happenings.

People always say "Ufo's have been seen for centuries", but they tend to neglect where their source of information came from. Were they there to see it for themselves? No they pulled that information from some program thats entire reason for existance is "UFO's" or from a book on "UFO's", where the author or producer wouldn't have done a good enough job at supporting their arguement if they didn't develop a background case. This case is the case they choose to percieve and premote to the viewer or reader, as apposed to the viewer or reader actually going out and doing their own homework.

There were alot of things depicted in history, however there was also alot of "Ergot" due to the lack of fungicides. Ergot is believed to have been at the roots of L.S.D. when ingested it can generate convulsions and of course hallucinations, even fevers.

(In fact it's suggested that Ergot was the main cause for the church to believe that people were being demonically possessed when they didn't understand the particular poisoning.)

I then don't need to go into great detail to suggest that our primative ancestors view of the world was far different, with everything they couldn't explain with science being termed as something un-natural or shaped by the hand of a god. I'm sure this is even the start of pseudoscience in the sense that those people that realised the power of manipulating others through their opinion gained them stature and wealth.

Kind of reminds me of the old joke (which might not be seen funny by a few so I apologise)

A priest asks tells the pope, "I feel I am losing faith with our religion, I've started to think that 'God' doesn't exist, what should I do?"

The pope replies, "Do what the rest of use do ... 'Bullshit' "

 

[sly1]

I remember when I was a little kid, my room had a stucko like celing. When laying in bed with a reading lamp on, looking up at the celing I saw pretty much everything I could think of, from outlines of faces, and trails, to building and dragons, It was quite fun but i doubt when then made the celing it was ment to look like that.....Im a very open minded person, I do belive there are structures on mars, that are quite apparent and very obvious. I stared at this picture you said has a bridge and a spotlight and I really cant see anything.

 

[btimsah]

I remember when I was a little kid, my room had a stucko like celing. When laying in bed with a reading lamp on, looking up at the celing I saw pretty much everything I could think of, from outlines of faces, and trails, to building and dragons, It was quite fun but i doubt when then made the celing it was ment to look like that.....Im a very open minded person, I do belive there are structures on mars, that are quite apparent and very obvious. I stared at this picture you said has a bridge and a spotlight and I really cant see anything.

The difference is, this is not the wall. These are NASA images in which they should have been investigating this kind of thing. They should, maybe they did. They have not said anything about it. Now that I think about, I am not sure I've ever heard NASA even once mention anything look like an intelligently built structure. Why not? They could simply say they want further investigation of them, and make it noted this is not evidence of alien life if their so worried WHEN that story get's out.

I will agree that the bridge feature is a bit obscure, and I don't like obscure images when dealing with this topic. However, once you find it, it becomes rather obvious. The key is locating the depression in the image and then the "bridge" toward the bottom of it. You can clearly make out a shadow of the bridge on the bottom of the depression. Again, I'm amazed either NASA never saw this or did not care.

 

[JoojooSpaceape]

Because you're close minded... So carry on, and get lost then.

And don't come back with crap that you are open minded, UNLESS you can name 1 SINGLE ANOMALY IN SPACE that you think is unexplainable.

settle down, there is no need to get defensive. Keep in mind that you calling other people close minded for them not listening to your ideas, makes you close minded.

Edit: id also like to remind most of you that Nasa is a government company, filled with people who are smart to say the least, the idea that they would let something that is easily noticed by a group of people (namely us) who would best be described as untrained amateurs, is perposterous.

 

[Stryder]

Just a point to that it's been said time and time again.

On NASA "hiding" alien structures:
NASA wouldn't/Couldn't hide alien structures from the "Planet", it's very naive to think that NASA is the only space organisation in the world. If NASA "hid" a structure, I'm sure one of the other organisations from one of the other countries around the world would all to happily point it out.

On NASA doctoring images:
Why would they bother to doctor an image they might as well hold back from publication? Again since NASA isn't the only organisation such tampering would be known about worldwide.

I believe that NASA does go through a great deal of peer review and criticism worldwide, some of the discoveries that NASA has made would probably be from the roots of amateur Astronomers and Cosmologist that again are worldwide.

So please from this point on don't bother with the NASA conspiracies.

 

[btimsah]

I am not hinting at a conspiracy, I am hinting at a very high security classification. Using the broad security regulations NASA operates under regarding space vehicles or bodies and the information thereof, you could include Alien intelligence in that list.

The way I read some of those security measures is that basically anything that we could use as a weapon or anything our enemy's could use as a weapon need to be hidden. Well, certainly re-engineering alien technology would fall under that umbrella.

I don't feel NASA scientists are in any way to blame for this. I just feel their security forbids them to tell us certain things. Somewhere on the net I read that a NASA scientist said, "we do not release everything". The question for me is, does the technology of and existance of Alien's represent a threat, oppertunity for us or our enemies. If they do, then NASA would not be able to say anything. It would have to be classified. Unless someone else has a different understanding of how those work. I'd be interested in asking NASA about just this! If you found alien base on moon - could you tell us? If you found alien spacecraft outside shuttle - could you tell us?

I am not a fan of conspiracies. I just know that the way they handle UFO's or other anomalies gives me the impression they cannot "tell us everything". Even if they want too.

 

[phlogistician]

I am not hinting at a conspiracy, I am hinting at a very high security classification. Using the broad security regulations NASA operates under regarding space vehicles or bodies and the information thereof, you could include Alien intelligence in that list.

So you're an expert on how NASA operates eh?

The way I read some of those security measures is that basically anything that we could use as a weapon or anything our enemy's could use as a weapon need to be hidden.

Please link to these 'measures' sop we can interpret them ourselves.

Somewhere on the net I read that a NASA scientist said, "we do not release everything".

Ah, nothing like a verified reliable source, ...

Unless someone else has a different understanding of how those work.

Well, I used to work for a bunch of Astronomers. Some of the guys went on to work for NASA, or we had visitors from NASA come over and use our facilities from time to time. We didn't do planetary science, so maybe weren't included in the circle of conspiracy, ... but all of the data our P.I.'s got, was raw, unedited, unprocessed data. The P.I. did all the data reduction and analysis themselves. Who, is going to suppress what then? The P.I. themselves?

NASA is the sum of it's scientists, it's P.I.'s, and they need paying, and NASA needs funding. Scientists love to bring new things to people, it's their nature. They'd want to show people evidence of extra terrestrial life. Remember the fuss over ALH84001? NASA went very, very public. Think they'd suppress something of more importance? Anything that captured the public's imagination would be good for funding, and the military could capitalize on it by improving their budget for the 'threat from space' (you know, like 'the war on terror').

It would be better for both sides, financially.

 

[btimsah]

So you're an expert on how NASA operates eh?

Never claimed to be an expert, as I stated at the bottom.

Please link to these 'measures' sop we can interpret them ourselves.

I honestly don't remember the site, or the law. It was on one of the big law sites and can be easily found I just don't remember the search term for it.

Ah, nothing like a verified reliable source, ...

Well, I read this a long time ago and assumed it was true because there are law's which state NASA cannot release everything to the public. Perhaps certain proofs of ETI is one of the thing's they cannot release?

Well, I used to work for a bunch of Astronomers. Some of the guys went on to work for NASA, or we had visitors from NASA come over and use our facilities from time to time. We didn't do planetary science, so maybe weren't included in the circle of conspiracy, ... but all of the data our P.I.'s got, was raw, unedited, unprocessed data. The P.I. did all the data reduction and analysis themselves. Who, is going to suppress what then? The P.I. themselves?

You don't read, I said it's not a conspiracy. Did you consider the skunk works to be a conspiracy? Why would they suppress that kind of data?

NASA is the sum of it's scientists, it's P.I.'s, and they need paying, and NASA needs funding. Scientists love to bring new things to people, it's their nature. They'd want to show people evidence of extra terrestrial life. Remember the fuss over ALH84001? NASA went very, very public. Think they'd suppress something of more importance? Anything that captured the public's imagination would be good for funding, and the military could capitalize on it by improving their budget for the 'threat from space' (you know, like 'the war on terror'). It would be better for both sides, financially.

Yes, they might be obligated to hide something that illustrated the technological danger of an advanced ETI flying outside our world, or on other bodies. I do think there is some kind of security regulations in place which keep's NASA from telling us certain thing's about ETI. I am just not exactly sure what kind of information. I am not saying I can prove it, just that after everything I've read and seen about NASA this is an impression I get. I agree with you about how they need money, and the flip side is they don't want to find life so they can still keep dangling that cookie in front of us. I also agree with you about the NASA scientists who would LOVE to discover alien life. I just feel they may not be in the position to tell us everything they do discover regarding ETI.

 

[phlogistician]

'might', 'may', you haven't got much have you? Whereas I worked for four years alongside a bunch of Astronomers, met NASA staff, and one Astronaut.

NASA's mission would certainly not be over if they found life, btw, it would be the beginning of the most exciting period in space history. I think if they found life, they'd get a lot funding, they don't need to find it, suppress it, and dangle it as a carrot. Far from it.

The real reason NASA doesn't release everything, is the sheer volume of data, btw. They gather lots, and lots of data. I used to work at an ESA data archive, and it was difficult making all the data for the few missions we archived for available. Now, scale that up to NASA proportions, and it's going to get really costly. Money they could spend on more missions, and more scientists. Making data avilable to general public, who won't understand it, nor have the tools to analyse it, isn't a good way to spend money. What perhaps you don't understand, is that NASA doesn't keep _pictures_ of planets etc, but raw data, which must be analysed using very specific scientific software. Mostly running on Unix workstations, btw. They don't have a bunch of .jpegs they are sitting on, just lots, and lots, of unanalysed data. If you want to see that data, enrol on a PhD, and ask them for the data, and you'll probably get it.

 

[btimsah]

Interesting, thank's for the information. I can only fathom how much data they have to deal with. I would love to go to NASA and see how they produce their images to the public, and watch the whole process.

The reason I say, "may and might", is because I don't know for sure. I have my guesses or claims that could be reasonable. The most intelligent person in the world should understand it's okay to admit you are ignorant about something.

I suppose I don't particularly feel I need to prove anything about this, because it's merely a hypothesis based on unproven claims about a UFO-ETI connection which I have concluded is real in my own mind over year's of study and investigation.

 

[Stryder]

Btimsah,
If you want to see how they process that data you would either have to find out whether or not they have a facility tour, or find a College/University to apply to in the area of image processing (like Photography, but with Computer filters) then perhaps apply to some Astrophysics Lab as a photographer.

 

[phlogistician]

Btimsah, ignore Styrder, he's talking out of his arse again.

To learn how to analyse that data, you'd need a degree, probably in geology or geography, with remote sensing and GIS modules, then enrol on a specific PhD for planetary science, although you could perhaps do a project for your degree on this subject, and not have to take it to PhD level to start getting data.

 

[Stryder]

Phlog,
You are the one speaking out the never region. Your implying that He has to amass the degree, however you can gain an entry level while moving towards higher educative levels. If you spent 5+ years learning how to view an image, you'd find their would be no job placement.

 

[phlogistician]

Phlog,
You are the one speaking out the never region.

It's 'nether' not 'never' Stryder.

Your implying that He has to amass the degree, however you can gain an entry level while moving towards higher educative levels. If you spent 5+ years learning how to view an image, you'd find their would be no job placement.

Stryder, a degree take three years, and after a course like the one I recommended, there would be plenty of job opportunities. Universities often teach stuff which helps in the real world, you know?

Also, it's not about the image. First you have to know what geological formations look like first hand, and then what photographs capture of them. You need to start with a solid understanding of the subject, and then get into image analysis, not do it the other way round!