SkinWalker said:Don't try to fix it now... it was very obvious what you were implying:
When I said weathering, I was referring to wind and rain. Are you saying the Moon has wind and rain?
SkinWalker said:Don't try to fix it now... it was very obvious what you were implying:
SkinWalker said:And yet you said "I'm gone," and still continue to post in the very sub-forum you claim to have left.
SkinWalker said:No, but you were clearly implying that because there is no wind/rain, that regoliths and other formations that are obviously present couldn't have been formed without some wildly speculative explanation like intelligent influence, etc.
The big mystery isn't the rocks on the moon (whether you like it or not, this refers to everything from the tallest mountain to the tiniest grain of soil) and how they came to be as they are, it's why don't you have the basic education to figure it out for yourself.
Instead of reading a book, going to a library, or enrolling in college, you troll the science boards with woo-woo nonsense about rocks on the moon being intelligently built structures.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/18/6847
SkinWalker said:Yeah, but you have to admit it gets old after a while when you keep getting "rock woo-woos" like btimsah, bradguth, and fluid6969 posting pictures of rocks and saying "it's a structure! NASA is hiding the truth!"
btimsah said:I was saying that some of the natural rocks you showed may have been created by processes not possible on the Moon.
btimsah said:If it gets so old then don't visit the Pseudoscience area. You love arguing about this stuff.
btimsah said:A big problem here is you're bizzare desire to use the pseudoscience area, and then COMPLAIN about the pseudoscience in it.
btimsah said:The reason it get's old is because you rarely offer an example of the process that could create such a rock.
SkinWalker said:My purpose for showing those rocks apparently went over your head. Go back and look at the quote just above them and then note that each included the word "rock." I wasn't in any way suggesting that the same geologic processes and mechanisms exist on Earth as on the Moon or vice-versa, though some do.
You got me there. I do have some fascination with it. But I ended up putting bradguth and fluid on "ignore." You haven't reached those heights and I doubt you will. In spite of my earlier suspicion that you were fluid, you're not nearly as irritating. Hell, one or two of my "fellow skeptics" are more irritating that you.
This is the "pseudoscience" sub forum of a "science" message board. This is where those that understand the scientific method and respect it come to discuss pseudoscience ("false" science; science which is fake). In this forum, I believe pseudoscience should be exposed not lauded, revered, or congratulated.
Science=good
Pseudoscience=bad
You rarely offer more than a blurry photo of an object without context or hypothesis. In the case of moon rocks, its obvious that the geologic process is one of the following: volcanic, impact-related (craters, ejecta, fissures), solar wind/cosmic effects, etc. There is not, as you've pointed out, any erosional forces such as wind or rain. There aren't any lifeforms (such as termites or ants) to create landforms. Man's impact has been insignificantly small (a few foot prints, rover tracks, etc.)
What's left? Without clearer, more precise photographs or radar data that include contexts such as other regional landforms (i.e. craters have been demonstrated to have been created by impact, filled with lava, then have subsequent impacts to give an overall strange morphological appearance).
Instead, you waltz into this subforum, thinking that its a woo-woo site, post your rock pictures and wait for either: 1) everyone to pat you on the back for being so astonishingly observant and how did NASA ever miss what you've figured out?; or 2) I'll stir up the debunkers and troll them into arguments and create some validity for myself since its obvious that they want to suppress my vast knowledge and keep me down like a modern-day Galileo, but they just don't know, my Copernican side is going to come out!; or 3) both.
Having said that, my real expectation is that those lurkers that don't post but read sites like this will see more than one side of an argument, so I'm not just referring to you in the paragraph above when I say "you," I'm referring to all the wild claims proponents that come here with the same expectations of a Pseudoscience forum, even if it is at a Science message board: "a new home... maybe they won't ban me like they did at BadAstronomy."
Nobody ever gets banned a sciforums.
Except crazymikey
Ophiolite said:btimsah, I am a vastly more experienced writer than I am a geologist. Writing and speaking earn me a living. So, you can rely upon my assurance that, under certain circumstances, it is acceptable to begin a sentence with 'And'. You just have to be sure you do it in the right circumstances. And it is also acceptable, aforementioned constraints applying, to begin a sentence with 'But'. [You can even end it with a preposition. As Churchill remarked sarcastically, "that is a practice up with which I will not put."]
Now back to the Phoenix like topic of moon structures. You said "While those rocks do create some interesting shapes, the Moon does not have the weathering mechinisms to create them."
I am waiting for your response to my post, which provided three serious mechanisms. You appear to have three options:
a) Concede that you had not fully appreciated the range or significance of available lunar weathering mechanisms.
b) Claim that this was a typographical error, or an error of expression.
c) Continue to ignore the post and hope I go away.
a) Would earn you a lot of respect.
b) Would earn you a few laughs.
c) I don't go away. I'm having too much fun.
see quote. I'm sure you have heard it all before..btimsah said:How do you know there are not any mushrooms the Moon? Have we investigated every rock? There seem's to be this allready assumed FACT that there are not any mushrooms in space. Basing that as a fact IS BAD SCIENCE because you have no way of knowing that yet.
At least I am basing my decision on images that I think reveal potential mushrooms. I am not sure what you are basing you're decision on. How do you KNOW FOR A FACT that there are no mushrooms on the Moon? The Moon is very old, and untill we know for sure there was never any intelligent life on it there's no way to claim that "mushrooms = bad science". We just don't know enough yet.
We have clearer photos of the face. It is not much of an anomaly at all.btimsah said:I would love clearer more precise photographs. This is why I want more attention paid to any anomaly on the Moon or Mars. One closeup shot could solve the most important question in Astronomy. Are we alone? This is why I post these images, to get suggestions as to what it could be, then to suggest that NASA has never mentioned these bizzare features before and ask why, and then suggest we should investigate these type of things further but NASA is never interested in them. Hell, the biggest anomaly the face seems to piss NASA off.. lol It's beyond frustrating.
shaman_ said:see quote. I'm sure you have heard it all before..
Sure it's possible that there are structures on the moon. The photos you have posted are not convincing anyone though.
shaman_ said:We have clearer photos of the face. It is not much of an anomaly at all.
btimsah said:The reason they are not convincing anyone, is because NASA did not see them. So, you and others here CANNOT accept that, I, alone found them.
I missed the part where you told me what this was:
btimsah said:Can you name one thing that IS an anomaly on another planet, moon or asteroid?
SkinWalker said:Wow. You found a blurry photo of a rock. The reason no one has told you what made this rock is that it cannot be discerned from the poor resolution. But I'm sure you see a "structure" that cannot be made by anything other than some intelligence, right?
btimsah said:The image resolution is too poor to explain the process that created the rock, but it's good enough for you to KNOW FOR A FACT that it's a rock?
SkinWalker said:Of course. Its either a rock or an artifact in the image itself. There's nothing else on the Moon except rocks and the stuff we left there during the Apollo missions.
And the image quality is poor in the blown up version. Sorry. It may be an "excellent" resolution, but when enlarged we're still limited by the number of pixels the original image was able to capture. At best, we're able to see about 100 meters or so per pixel. Often, the best is about a Km. But you want to discuss "structures" with images that can't provide information.
If you really want to discuss this sort of thing seriously, go to Google and search for Mark Carlotto. Most of his research is in relation to the Cydonia region of Mars, but he also has done some stuff with the Moon. Search for "mark carlotto moon axis" and see what you get.