Why do you waste your time on blogs/threads like this?

Why do you waste your time on blogs and threads like this? (just like your buddy above)

He has a point though.

There is only one point to his and the other dude's post: make fun of it, shut it down, divert, distract. That's it. A blanket statement of "you see what you want to see" is nothing but a waste of time and energy. Anyone taking someone else's image and drawing stupid shapes all over it is not a point - other than to point out that one can draw shapes on anything.

If people don't see anything in the image, fine - but why be an ass?

Especially speaking about Mr. Magic Marker on my image, he/she's clearly an Aristotelian. Hey! Look at me! See how witty I am? Hey! Stop looking over there! I'm the important one here! See how funny this is? I got him this time! Ha! I tore him a new one! Ha! Structures on the Moon - nonsense! I'll show him! Teee hee hee hee hee

"At the philosophical and scientific levels, the most durable feature of the controversy has been the split between the 'Copernicans,' who argue that Humankind does not occupy a special place in the universe, and 'Aristotelians,' who believe that we do." ... "Our thinking about extraterrestrial intelligence also must contend with an innate human longing to feel important. To some people, that requires that we remain unique. The easiest solution available to them is to declare that intelligent aliens do not exist." - Michael A.G. Michaud

I had a funny feeling about this forum from the start. It seemed infiltrated with witty commenters and topic distractors...

What worries me more is that they could be hired to do so.

Not really because it is true people do see what they want to see when they look and believe hard enough.



Yes I can see how drawing pictures over your image can be offensive but the point is that you can make out anything on those pictures. I can look at the tree in my garden and se a lot of devil faces and alien eyes and other weird stuff but that does not mean they are there.




Thank you that actually made me chuckle especially the nonsense! I'll show him! Teee hee hee hee hee part.




That is being paranoid.

But isn't that exactly what you're doing? You've taken a NASA image and have drawn shapes on it. Why are your shapes any more valid than those drawn by Magnatude?

In your introductory post here, you made quite a big deal of your claim that you have found an image which shows "indisputable evidence of structural design" on the moon. You also stated that your mission is simply "To stimulate conversation and debate in public and academic circles by revealing new photographic evidence of intentional structural design and organic shape-forms existing on the Moon prior to, and during the Apollo missions."

Well, if you'd really like to stimulate debate, would you please tell me the NASA photo ID of the image containing that indisputable evidence? I'd really like to see it.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/esp_luna_7.htm

I would not write a book if I were you. It has already been done.

Why?

His book was written in 1976. Glenn Steckling's book (by him and his father) is another great one.

A problem I have with George Leonard's "Someone Else Is On The Moon" is that he doesn't have photo enlargements of the amazing claims. Constantly suggesting what we would see if we could see the images he's referencing. Also, the printing of the images was of poor quality (of which he even mentions).

My book is more of a picture book with hardly any words.

NOTE: this is not directed at Pericynthion per se, but to the many that feel the need to debunk before considering.

So let's apply your logic to a courtroom scenario.

You are the in the hot seat for whatever and the prosecuting attorney presents to the judge and jury a photo of you caught in the act. The photo was taken by a security camera and is a little fuzzy. Then he presents enlargements and enhancements - these have obviously been modified and prosecuting attorney admits it. On copies of the modified versions he has drawn lines to indicate the presence of a watch, the location of major features of on the face, and through shape from shading, has determined the height of the individual to within a couple inches. Through color analysis he has also identified the person in the photo having a known complexion. He offers this as evidence to support the testimony of the only witness to your actions.

And your rebuttal would then be. Anyone can draw lines on someone's arm. Here look. I can trace the shadows and make anything. Therefore it's not me. Now look at this person - it looks like Groucho Marks! And hey - you probably wanted to see me in that photo, so how can we trust you or the photo? I should be let go!

Well, I'm not the only one finding odd things on the Moon. And there are more and more reports of UFOs and the like coming out of the woodwork (thanks to YouTube). And with all this stuff going on and the super vast majority not making a dime off it, or getting any fame or glory, why is it so difficult for people to realize that not only is it possible that there are 'things' on the Moon that either we or someone else created - and considering the number of reports and interesting images coming to light, that it's probable? Why stand behind, "well, those are fuzzy images (arms crossed) so it could be anything". Why are you even reading this post? Don't you have a life of 'reality' to go be in? Why spend your time with unexplained mysteries if you are so certain that there's nothing to explain because there are no mysteries?

I would be shocked if you or the others posting a little while ago believe in anything extraordinary. And probably nothing extraordinary has ever happened to any of you. And if it did, you quickly explained it away... stuffed it in a little box in the back of your brain... and then find yourself cruising forums like this - pissing on someone else's research while you secretly want to believe - BUT only under your conditions. Crisp, perfectly developed photos being held by the Alien that built the structures while he is standing on your toe.

I myself actually do believe that there must be other life out there and I would like all the other stuff like Moth-man and Bigfoot to be real.

Just because people do not believe what you are showing does not mean they are P***ing over your research. Yes there will be times when someone might make fun but hey you will get that anywhere. I myself do not see any alien civilizations or structures on the moon. I do think that you are seeing what you want to see I know you are going to disagree but we are both entitled to our opinions.

I see what I see just like Galileo saw what he saw.

Why do you?

Well, if there is alien structures a mile high on the moon, these guys will find it.


http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071107_kaguya_e.html


Tracks in crater
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/img/20071107_kaguya_03l.jpg

Those are lovely yet sad images because the Moon just looks so dead and creepy







I did not see anything that looked like tracks in the crater unless you are on about that long streak but that still did not look like tracks just scars.

I would think this could lay to bed the alien structures on the moon.

I hope so, it doesn't get any clearer then HDTV of the moon. I wonder if the Japanese will post all images it takes...they are going to map the entire surface of the moon with HDTV. I'm curious about the Apollo sites.

Is there a time frame on mapping? What areas & when?

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071107_...ya_movie_e.html

The poor quality of this image, the JPEG artifacting, and being only 72dpi distorts everything. The only thing this image is good for is identification of large (really large) scale oddities of which can be reevaluated with a future high resolution version.



For those of you that haven't seen this, it's important to really understand what happens to the original shapes:

Sorry LunarSightings unfortunately I could only see craters and scars.

Me too... that's why I posted the second photo showing distortion of shapes.

Because I am trying to contribute to the investigation and interest over the possibility that there are intentionally designed structures on the Moon - while others only come here to debunk - imagine walking past a yard that has two dogs and they start barking (as in get the hell away I'm going to bite you way). They get so excited and then for some reason, one of the dogs starts biting on the other when it was you that was considered the threat. There are people on this forum that must be bored or something because so many of them just turn on the poster (on any topic) - there's this tone of "come'on... get off it already" on so many topics and responses. Well, it's disturbing but some people who don't feel like jumping into the fight actually do look at the material presented - so that's why I contribute.

Well some of us have been here for years, and like to bring a little logical thought to posts. Thats why we are here. The majority of people that look at your photos see nothing. Doesn't that tell you something. Like you are seeing what you want.

Did you take a poll? Where are the results? I guess it's based on just the people that take the time to slam my contributions. Well, in that case, you're right! The vast majority do not see anything in the images - and that can be explained in may ways. For example, the vast majority are probably not pilots, having trained their eyes at seeing from high up. Second, there's no way to read the gamma curve, or settings on their monitors, therefore subtle shading differences quickly ramp or clump up with neighboring gray values - these images are often underexposed, overexposed, or just plain shot from an angle using a telephoto lens that compresses all depth perception. But you're right. Because they don't see anything means I should just pack up and leave - bullied out really by someone with a hundred we-like-you stars.

Eric (the raving) Skeptic, have you ever seriously tried to find anything odd on the Moon? Or was your mind made up a long time ago? And what's with your parental role here? Are you the shepherd of the lost-in-unexplained-mysteries flock? Is this your forum? Do you do this to your family and friends? Keeping everyone around you in check with your reality and then pour on some reasonable logic that only stirs debates as a tactic to remain in control? Jeez man, give it a break. Sit back and watch. What's the harm? Better yet, try it for yourself. Go buy an EVP recorder and get your own results -- then we can have a discussion, not a chess game of tactics and counter-tactics.

So denfensive.Tsk, tsk.
People are going to disagree with you. Its in the nature of what you are posting.

But we would love for your claims to be true because that would be awesome, but I am trying to see what you are seeing though LunarSightings but I am not really seeing the same things that you are obviously seeing. While you are seeing buildings I am seeing craters and hills and shadows. I want to see what you are seeing but I am having difficulty.

Exactly. Just because we are skeptical doesn't mean we don't want this to be true, BUT his evidence is flimsy.

All I know is I have a hankering for some swiss cheese about now. YUM!

Me thinks that sentence says a bunch!

The Moon is odd. It's an alien world.
There's all sorts of stuff to look for, and at... there.
We've done quite a bit, in fact, 24 men have actually been there, and looked all over the place at it...up close and personal.

All of them looked, and observed, and saw the oddest stuff imaginable.

But none of them saw anything resembling a structure, and alien artifact, a building, or anything remotely resembling anything made by intelligent life.

Trying to find something odd on the Moon is a rather silly statement.
Everything there is odd in it's way...it's a wonder, to be sure...but nothing has ever been found that is as odd as what some people try and do their best to see there...

Ok nevermind *RUNS AWAY!*

ps: I bet MID would eat swiss cheese with me so boo-ya!

Here ya go. I leave you all with this one. Don't bother asking for the image number - I've been more than upfront and honest with my offerings and I need to protect my research before it's published. Trust in that it's one of the images available from one of the official sources. Just take it for what it is... BTW, ever notice I didn't make any claims as to what these things (I see) are? That's because all I know (see) is that they are different from the terrain around them - so much so that I openly question wether they were intentionally created - by who or what, I don't care - and that's all I'm trying to offer. See it, fine. Don't see it, that's fine too. If you do see it, or see something different (not chicken claws and scary faces) then we have something real.

Happy New Year.

What are you seeing? Good grief. You are really reaching.

I am struggling I can only make out the surface and craters.


I just see craters again on all of them *sobs*

One of the issues the astronauts had was depth perception because there aren't any normal (usual) objects for us to get a sense of scale or place - especially more difficult when looking at a crop (which is why I provided the larger one that show more of the area).

So, let's say you are looking out the window of a helicopter and it's foggy. Something goes wrong and you need to land asap! Where in that image looks like you might take your a chance to land? Quick! You gotta do it now!

I would head for the center (of the image) where I see a large complex geometric shape. Compare that collection of interrelated shapes to the terrain around it.

My father had the hardest time and then one day it clicked. I had to show him countless images before he, without me pointing them out, finally got used to the terrain, casting away his usual experience of a high contrast, colorful world (through the eyes or in modern photos). No lines, no nothing. And he is very skeptical about anything out of the ordinary (retired policeman) --- a very grounded in reality kinda guy.

Some people in my preview group (not here) have the hardest time seeing anything but fuzzy dots. They literally can't perceive the invisible surface grid, identify the shapes, stack and collect in the mind, and reconstruct these odd, fuzzy forms into anything.

Typically, these folks live busy lives and quite frankly, their eye's skip around the photo (crop or full sized) and the see only on the most macro scale - that of craters/white spots, and maybe the rolling hills or so.. and the horizon. BUT! When some of them do finally 'see', it's rather remarkable because I'll then just show them a random photo from the collection (no lines, no gestures, no arrows, no suggestions) and like magic, they point out the very objects of interest we have already identified. They aren't pointing off into just anywhere, they too finally see it.

Then of course comes the question: What do you think it is?

If I knew that, I'd either be a millionaire or bankrupt apologizing to the stockholders that got me there.



Again, that doesn't mean anything regarding whether or not we are actually seeing 'structures' - it merely points out that "we" need to be able to see (identify) the same thing before "we" can have a discussion about whether or not it's something other than Moon dust.

Make sense?

Okay I tried looking at the last picture you posted and because most of the picture is a bland surface like a piece of paper in a way my eyes kept wandering around the picture so I tried imagining that there was a little dot in the screen that I would focus on to stop my eyes skittering about and Now I can see what you are on about in the last pic. The square object that looks like it has four other squared groves in it at each corner. Also the centre of the main square object seems to be a circular indentation or raised object.

Have I got it now or crapped that one up.


But if I have got it right that does not still mean I believe it is a Alien structure I want to see If I can point out ant of the others yet lol.

odd that in the one photo of the vertical bar structure , it's shadow tends to run north and south while all others are correct with the main light souce running horizontally east/west.

did someone doing cgi not understand how light sources fall ?

YOU SEE IT!!!!

Now... look at my avatar icon... I have that one in three different angles - two of which were good enough to create a stereo image (analygraph (red/blue glasses)) from...

I agree - I don't know if there's enough info there to consider it intentionally designed or not, but once you see it, it definitely stands out from the rest of the terrain.


Just added: The diagonal white shape upper left (if North is up, it's angled from West to North East) is actually behind that funky roundish shape. I realized that from the other photos from other angles.

I agree now that I can see what you are on about in that last pic It does stand out of the ordinary terrain a little.

if he is speaking to the light areas ? well that has been introduced and not unknown to science. lights can be seen on the moon. fleeting. lasting seconds. the theory is the moon isn't as 'dead' as we think it is.

if that is what he's speaking of. ( but I tend to think nothing more than simple overexposure )

the fact that those light spots are similar to alot of lighter spots is also an effect of photography and exposure time and lack of atmosphere. darker darks , lighter lights. ........... but nothing of ET.

Tuesday, 13 June, 2000, 12:20 GMT 13:20 UK
Lights glow on Moon



New evidence shows that the Moon is not a totally dead world as was thought by many astronomers. It does still occasionally stir with activity.

Even though they have been reported from time to time for hundreds of years, claims of changes on the lunar surface have always been controversial. Many scientists have dismissed the occasional reported sightings of glows and mists hanging over certain lunar features.

Now a French astronomer has obtained some of the best evidence yet that occasionally something does disturb the lunar surface.

It was seen in 1992 by veteran lunar observer Audouin Dollfus of the Observatoire de Paris using the one metre (39 inch) Meudon reflecting telescope. He has only just finished analysing the results, and has submitted them for publication.

Fading light

On 30 December, he noticed a series of glows on the floor of the large crater Langrenus. They were definitely not there the day before. Professor Dollfus observed them for several days before they faded.

Clouds of light were seen dancing inside the crater

Each time he returned to the telescope, he noticed that the shape of the glows had changed.

He believes that the glows are due to escaping gas that lifts dust above the lunar surface into sunlight.

Some lunar observers have expressed surprise that such a mist should have been seen above Langrenus which was not regarded as a prime candidate for lunar changes.

Professor Dolfuss points out that Langrenus, when observed in detail, has an extensive series of fractures on its crater floor and the gas could be escaping from these.

Man on the Moon

So-called "Transient Lunar Phenonemon" (TLP) have been reported from time to time but definite evidence has been lacking.

Professor Dollfus observes the Moon

Responding to observations from the ground, Neil Armstrong was asked to look for glows on the Moon during the Moon landing in July 1969. He reported seeing a part of the Moon glow, but later could not be sure which region it was.

In 1994, the Clementine lunar orbiting satellite observed the crater Aristarchus before and after a TLP was seen from the Earth.

Clementine spectral data suggested that parts of the crater had changed colour slightly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/789095.stm

It's very subtle. The masters of black and film are still considered some of the best cinematographers because they had to use lighting in a black and white world. They had to create shadow and contrast - realizing what it's going to look like when finally developed.

Example: Here's an example of what happens not only to a normal contrast color spectrum, but also when the contrast is reduced. Many of the Apollo photos lack proper white balance and therefore are often muted (as in the previous example with the geometric shapes in the terrain). Just to add to the problem, albedo played a big roll in poorly exposed images taken on the Moon. Moon dust has a strange reflection property which makes photographing detail (which is actually contrast) that much harder.

Incredible. It's sitting in our backyard and we have no idea what's going on up there.

I was just reading about the lunar dust storms that are now (apparently) a fact. It happens along the terminator. About to read it myself straight from the horse's mouth:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/07dec_moonstorms.htm



Not so dead after all!

Any time, Sweetie!

what about this: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22169.jpg

Well, why not find a high powered telescope and have a look for yourselves? The huge telescopes used to find stars beyond our galaxy, I would think could be able to see close enough on the moons surface to find any of these things. With the millions of people who have probably looked at the moon, how come no one has said anything?

Unfortunately not. They do not have the optical resolution required.

Best,
Badeskov

Another one just above it...

Is it possible this object was dropped there by the person who left all of the footprints nearby??