28 replies to this topic

[WhyDontYouBeliEveMe]

dont worry my friend. and welcome to the forum !  i do believe there's something up there !  our creators, soon they ll come to us and tell us we are at war agains other alien lifeforms . and that they have a really really long life span . it takes 100000 of earth years for them to reproduce themselfs , so they created us humans . in order to fight their war !  we reproduce ourself at an explosive rate.  
within a million year our species would be in every corner of this universe like a virus that cant be stopped.. no matter how many you kill !
we are the ultimate warriors !

[Amerix]

If you believe in moon cities, I have a face on the surface of mars to sell you..

[Alienated Being]

I am uncertain as to what you are trying to establish.

[JesseCuster]

soldier4death, on 10 November 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

Are you talking about this?

Dear oh dear.

Check out any of the areas he claims in Tycho have 'towers' or 'dense network of streets and buildings' and if you get the LRO images of the area, what you're actually looking at is the following:



Not the blurry mess you get when you zoom in beyond Google Moon's own image resolution.

As typically happens, he has mistaken the blocky pixellation of overzooming into a digital image for something artificial like streets or buildings, and the blurriness that Google uses to minimise the pixellation for some sort of attempt on NASA's behalf to hide moon cities.  And he doesn't know where to go to in order to find images much better than is available on Google Moon/Mars.

Fail.

Rocks, rocks and more rocks.  It's amazing the amount of people who can turn the most banal looking desert landscapes on Mars and the Moon into alien cities.

Edited by Archimedes, 12 November 2012 - 06:17 PM.

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

Archimedes, on 12 November 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Dear oh dear.

Check out any of the areas he claims in Tycho have 'towers' or 'dense network of streets and buildings' and if you get the LRO images of the area, what you're actually looking at is the following:



Not the blurry mess you get when you zoom in beyond Google Moon's own image resolution.

As typically happens, he has mistaken the blocky pixellation of overzooming into a digital image for something artificial like streets or buildings, and the blurriness that Google uses to minimise the pixellation for some sort of attempt on NASA's behalf to hide moon cities.  And he doesn't know where to go to in order to find images much better than is available on Google Moon/Mars.

Fail.

Rocks, rocks and more rocks.  It's amazing the amount of people who can turn the most banal looking desert landscapes on Mars and the Moon into alien cities.

Geeez your kinda harsh on the guy

[JesseCuster]

Sorry, nothing personal.  You just get a bit jaded listening to people coming up with stuff that they haven't researched in any depth at all as if they've made astounding discoveries when it doesn't take much knowledge at all to have a proper look at the claims.

[Slave2Fate]

R4z3rsPar4d0x, on 12 November 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

Geeez your kinda harsh on the guy

Sometimes there's no diplomatic way to say what needs to be said. I find the whole 'moon/mars anomalies' to be purely fantasy based drivel with nothing to support the notion but blurred images that can only fool the uninformed. It is an exercise in fantasy that somehow takes hold of some people and transforms into (in their minds) legitimate data. That in itself isn't wrong or harmful however when it is proposed (or even insinuated) as some sort of conspiratorial fact then that is just plain lies and misinformation that should be countered with cold hard facts every time. When a small handful of people believe erroneous information it is no big deal however when a lot of people believe it, it's a problem.

So far all of these images that have been used to promote the moon/mars anomalies have been low quality, sometimes heavily distorted images that have always been shown to be nothing more than pareidolia when hi res images of the same area have been provided. It is nothing more than drawing a conclusion based on incomplete or flawed data.

[JesseCuster]

For those who are genuinely interested, don't use Google Moon or Mars as your primary source for supposed anomalies.  Use it as a tool to guide you towards what you want.  When checking something that I or someone else has found in Google Mars or Moon, I find it quickly using Google Mars/Moon as that is far quicker and more user friendly than the website to quickly hone in on a surface feature.  Make a note of the co-ordinates (switch Google Moon/Mars over to digital degrees, as that's what the ASU website that hosts the images uses).  Then go to either of the following websites to see what kind of image

For high-quality lunar pics: http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc (it has both narrow angle (higher level of detail over less of the surface) and wide angle (lower level of detail covering more of the surface) but the wide angle images seem all messed no matter what browser I try to view them on)

For high-quality lunar pics: http://global-data.mars.asu.edu/ (it's down at the moment unfortunately, but has images from multiple orbiter cameras)

They both have Flash viewers that allow you to browse and zoom in on the images for the area you wish to view.

It might not be obvious at first how to get what you want, but with some quick know-how you can find great detailed surface images from both the Moon and Mars and in the case of Mars from multiple orbiters.  Not all orbiters have mapped all the surface (or the images aren't yet available) so it can be a bit of trial and error getting what you want, but it's worth it if you really want to see the level of detail these bodies have been mapped at.

Also, Google Mars allows you to overlay Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter's CTX imagery onto the globe.  This is much higher quality then any of the default images that Google Mars usually uses.  It covers more of the planet than some higher-resolution orbiter cameras, at a lower level of detail (but like I said, much better than the default imagery in Google Mars).   If you're going to stick with Google Mars because it's faster and more user friendly, turn this layer on.  

As Slave2Fate noted above, invariably when a proposed anomaly of some sort is found with better imagery, it disappears and turns into rocks, hills, craters, etc.  Always use the best images available for what you wish to examine.

[psyche101]

steveru, on 10 November 2012 - 03:06 AM, said:

using google moon, two areas high resolution, 21 part series youtube '' alien moon cities'' describes comon structures, took me alot time,

Perhaps it might be more beneficial to use that time to book a night at your local observatory and see for yourself.

[DONTEATUS]

At Least Try the Local Pub, and then you can use that as your defense !

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

R4z3rsPar4d0x, on 12 November 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

Geeez your kinda harsh on the guy

Kinda harsh on the guy? He's making it all up, for the purposes of getting hits on a Wes site. Is that not reasonable grounds for being harsh?

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

747400, on 13 November 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

Kinda harsh on the guy? He's making it all up, for the purposes of getting hits on a Wes site. Is that not reasonable grounds for being harsh?

It seems everyone has a post on my past comment, I dont think that anyone that truly has a brian believes theres citys on the moon.  If they do then they are mistaken. I didnt mean to get everybody riled up with the comment I made. I sincerely appologize

[psyche101]

R4z3rsPar4d0x, on 13 November 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

It seems everyone has a post on my past comment, I dont think that anyone that truly has a brian believes theres citys on the moon.  If they do then they are mistaken. I didnt mean to get everybody riled up with the comment I made. I sincerely appologize

[DONTEATUS]

Too funny R4z3rs and On ANd On ! And On to Infinity !