What's this unusual Lunar feature, showing in Google Moon?

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

aphh

Guest
JonClarke":2ugwncgt said:
Secret moon missions are entertaining but exist only in fiction. It is michievious to suggest otherwise.
Ofcourse. Just like any other shady government activity.

And if it turned out some individual got wind of it, we have these "experts" in suitable positions explaining it away, who just happen to get their paycheck from the deep pockets of citizens... a.k.a "Government". :lol:

Nothing to see here, folks. This is marsh gas on the moon, very natural thing.
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
aphh":1iy4pe25 said:
JonClarke":1iy4pe25 said:
Secret moon missions are entertaining but exist only in fiction. It is michievious to suggest otherwise.
Ofcourse. Just like any other shady government activity.

And if it turned out some individual got wind of it, we have these "experts" in suitable positions explaining it away, who just happen to get their paycheck from the deep pockets of citizens... a.k.a "Government". :lol:

Nothing to see here, folks. This is marsh gas on the moon, very natural thing.
Are you calling me a paid disinformation agent? Excellent! I have always wanted to be one of those! It's the best thing I have been called "data weasel" back in the Hoagland wars!

The reality of course (the one that seems to escape you) is that those who deny the reality of the Apollo record who are the purveyors of disinformation.
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
I'm partial to be called a "NASABorg" myself. It has a nice ring to it. Some guy that wanted to beam laser messages to Venusians called me that on one of my first visits. I even did a bunch of nice sigline graphics with the NASABorg theme too.. Long gone now though.
 
A

aphh

Guest
JonClarke":3269f6od said:
Are you calling me a paid disinformation agent? Excellent! I have always wanted to be one of those! It's the best thing I have been called "data weasel" back in the Hoagland wars!
I didn't call you anything, you yourself raised the shields immediately. Wonder why?

Truth is that you don't have any better information or knowledge, but insist on having the authority when writers here know just as much, if not better. Atleast admit that your theories are just that, theories. Not quantitative analysis, no matter how much chest thumping.
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
aphh":3frz3u7i said:
JonClarke":3frz3u7i said:
Are you calling me a paid disinformation agent? Excellent! I have always wanted to be one of those! It's the best thing I have been called "data weasel" back in the Hoagland wars!

I didn't call you anything, you yourself raised the shields immediately. Wonder why?
Did not call me anything? if it turned out some individual got wind of it, we have these "experts" in suitable positions explaining it away, who just happen to get their paycheck from the deep pockets of citizens... a.k.a "Government".

Since I was the one critcising Moon hoax claims, including yours, in this and other threads, it is entirely reasonable to assume that I am among those "experts" in the "government pocket" who "explain things away".

Raising shields? Nope, just greating your suggestion that I am a paid disinformation agent with the hilarity it deserves.

Truth is that you don't have any better information or knowledge, but insist on having the authority when writers here know just as much, if not better.
Who might these better informed people be? You? How about we let the people here judge who is better informed?

At least admit that your theories are just that, theories. Not quantitative analysis, no matter how much chest thumping.
And what theories might these be? Those connected the the image in question? Then refute them. They are testable theories. Strictly speaking they are hypotheses, not theories anyway. There is a difference you know. Find out which specific image contains the feature. See if it exists on other copies. if it does, check the original. It can be done, you know.

Those in other threads? Discuss them in those threads.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
aphh":3310u51w said:
JonClarke":3310u51w said:
Are you calling me a paid disinformation agent? Excellent! I have always wanted to be one of those! It's the best thing I have been called "data weasel" back in the Hoagland wars!
I didn't call you anything, you yourself raised the shields immediately. Wonder why?

Truth is that you don't have any better information or knowledge, but insist on having the authority when writers here know just as much, if not better. Atleast admit that your theories are just that, theories. Not quantitative analysis, no matter how much chest thumping.
Actually, you have repeatedly implied that a number of us here are on NASA payroll to refute people {self censored ad hom} like you.
I'd strongly suggest that unless you can substantiate such accusations, you be very careful about what you say, and how you say it.

You are treading perilously close to violating the rules.

You have no theories, if fact they aren't even hypotheses. They are pure unsubstantiated speculation.
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
dalter":1yh4qwte said:
How big is it? can't height be estimated?
First of all we need to find out whether or not it is real, and not and image artefact.
 
B

BoJangles2

Guest
Ok I’ve found specific unfettered proof that there is something really fishy going on with the moon. With my many years of photo shop training, and google image porn searching, not to mention woostinct (woo-instinct), I'm able to look at the moon with trained eyes.

I'm talking not just aliens here; I'm talking the whole kit-and-caboodle, Aliens, Alien civilization, secret moon missions, moon worms, government conspiracies, doctored images that have come straight from George bush’s archives, and the moons own nascar lines. In fact, this is nearly the whole “unexplained archive” all wrapped into one. [CalliEdit: global ad hom removed.] Every fantasies you have ever about the moon is correct, YOU GUYS GOT IT ALL CORRECT *nod*


Ok let’s start with the original image posted in this thread

Freaky eh? Obviously an alien base…. But not just any alien base, let’s have a closer look



Do you notice the “S” on it, it’s obviously superman’s moon beach house. +1 for woo’s



This is a zoomed out version, you’ll notice these can’t just be written-off as image artefacts any more. See how there are heaps of these anomalies? There can only be a couple of rational explanations. Let’s have a look at some more below to get a better picture.



Notice all the moon bases, heaps of them!!!, this is big news, woos unite, this is some woo-worthy stuff here.


Before we draw anymore conclusions lets highlight some things.

As you can see I’ve highlighted what can only be described as a moon city. You’ll notice the low socio economic areas on the left which are obviously moon ghettos, obviously not everyone can afford beach house on the moon like superman, he got a good deal and bought in early.


Lets zoom in.

Scary hey! Who ever knew there we so much construction going on at the moon, good thing we have Google moon to keep track of all this stuff.



Notice I’ve circled a base similar to the superman beach house. I'm pretty sure Michael Jackson owns this.


Now things are getting interesting.

Notice those two conspicuous dots? Well they just aren’t dots, look below.
I’ve added some lines that enhance the natural features of this image,



It’s obviously a face on the moon, like the face on mars, except this one is undeniable. Aliens have been at work here for a long time…



These are undeniably moon worms, they have been growing unchecked for ages. These have been causing problems for the moon aliens and secret government bases since thier inception.

OMG there are heaps of them!!!


But there is better stuff, look below

This might just look to crater to those pesky NASA scientists, but to a google image expert like myself with years of photoshop traning it’s a lot more.


I’ve enhanced some natural features in this image below.

Yup, there is no doubt about it, the moon has been colonized for ages, it has its own nascar lines. Notice how the aliens (or republicans) have drawn these huge glyphs into the moons exterior, they are obviously trying to signal flying alien types.
 
C

CommonMan

Guest
That was good! But I think you must have too much time on your hands. :D
 
A

aphh

Guest
MeteorWayne":119s1gcn said:
Actually, you have repeatedly implied that a number of us here are on NASA payroll to refute people {self censored ad hom} like you.
Ofcourse you did not provide any evidence to back your claim, as always. May I remind you, that being a moderator on a forum gives you power to edit and remove texts other people wrote.

It does not give you magical powers to become an authority on space related matters. :lol:

MeteorWayne":119s1gcn said:
You are treading perilously close to violating the rules.
Really? Sue me.
 
A

aphh

Guest
JonClarke":295iqt5p said:
Since I was the one critcising Moon hoax claims, including yours, in this and other threads, it is entirely reasonable to assume that I am among those "experts" in the "government pocket" who "explain things away".
You said that it was michievous or something like that to suggest there might have been a secret government operation. If you know that there has not been one, then you actually have the better information and must be on government payroll.

If this is not the case, then your opinion is just as good as mine, or anybody else's about secret government missions and projects. There may have been one, or there may have not been a secret mission.

My point is that unless you truly have the information, either you were there or otherwise obtained hard evidence, you don't know. You can admit atleast that.

If you insist on knowing without being there or having the hard evidence, what does that make you?
 
S

Smersh

Guest
BoJangles2":vfoum7uy said:
... It proves all the nut-jobs here are absolutely right ...
All what "nut-jobs?" Sounds like a general ad-hom directed against multiple un-named persons posting in this thread to me. That's a violation of the TOS.

Do not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments against your fellow community member ...

Please be courteous to the other users and do not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. Global ad homs aimed at groups within the community are not acceptable ...
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12860
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
He's not insisting on knowing without evidence. He has formed an opinion and presented a reasonable basis for that opinion. The latter part of that sentence is what makes his opinion differ from yours, because the only basis you seem to have is "this looks weird and nobody's told me it ISN'T alien therefore it is". Five pages of that.

It is not a matter of having access to more information, nor is it a matter of being mean in some way. It's that he has supported his argument while you have not supported yours. You simply throw up your hands and say "well, you can't *know* so we might as well just believe any old thing, as long as that any old thing doesn't disrespect my opinion by having the infernal cheek to contradict it". Which, to be totally honest, is a pretty silly way to go through life. It's also pretty closed-minded, because you have formed your conclusion and then completely lost all curiosity about it.

*mod hat on*
By the way, we will not sue you, aphh, if you violate the rules. We do not care what your opinions are. We do care, however, if you explicitly intend to violate the rules here. So please don't try to make enemies of us. We're not here to edit you or ban you or anything like that. We'd much rather work together.
*mod hat off*
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
JonClarke":84qrkqfi said:
Are you calling me a paid disinformation agent? Excellent! I have always wanted to be one of those! It's the best thing I have been called "data weasel" back in the Hoagland wars!

The reality of course (the one that seems to escape you) is that those who deny the reality of the Apollo record who are the purveyors of disinformation.
Much as I like the ring of "data weasel" I need the $$s. What's the scale for dis-info these days ? Are TPTB looking for more agents ? ;)


Hmmmm ... dis-info agent ... agent of disinformation .... dis-agent .... any chance it could be dis-info weasel ? That sounds kewl !
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
aphh":307oitsf said:
JonClarke":307oitsf said:
Since I was the one critcising Moon hoax claims, including yours, in this and other threads, it is entirely reasonable to assume that I am among those "experts" in the "government pocket" who "explain things away".
You said that it was michievous or something like that to suggest there might have been a secret government operation. If you know that there has not been one, then you actually have the better information and must be on government payroll.
Sorry, you are still getting things round the wrong way. It is mischieveous to continually suggest that there have been secret missions in the absence of any evidence.

And what has being or not being on the US government payroll got to do with it? A postie in the Ozaks might be on the US government payoll but may know far less about US missions (including the secret ones) than a Swedish amateur satellite tracker.

If this is not the case, then your opinion is just as good as mine, or anybody else's about secret government missions and projects. There may have been one, or there may have not been a secret mission.
Our opinions are only as good as the evidence that supports them and the reasoning that builds them up. In this case there is no evidence whatsoever for secret missions. So my opinion is well founded. The counter opinion, that there have been, is as unsuporrted, and therefore not.

My point is that unless you truly have the information, either you were there or otherwise obtained hard evidence, you don't know. You can admit atleast that.

If you insist on knowing without being there or having the hard evidence, what does that make you?
You keep getting basic reasoning backwards. You can validly use the absence of evidence against a proposition. But you can't validly argue for something without evidence. Since you keep doing precisely this, what does this make you?

But all this is a degression. Rather than playing games, why don't you determine whether the feature in the OP is actually there? That would actually be useful.
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Mee_n_Mac":2103qiic said:
JonClarke":2103qiic said:
Are you calling me a paid disinformation agent? Excellent! I have always wanted to be one of those! It's the best thing I have been called "data weasel" back in the Hoagland wars!

The reality of course (the one that seems to escape you) is that those who deny the reality of the Apollo record who are the purveyors of disinformation.
Much as I like the ring of "data weasel" I need the $$s. What's the scale for dis-info these days ? Are TPTB looking for more agents ? ;)


Hmmmm ... dis-info agent ... agent of disinformation .... dis-agent .... any chance it could be dis-info weasel ? That sounds kewl !
The renummeration for defending truth is a big round number - 0.

On the other hand you do get to be called all sorts of amusing names. Like disinfo-weasel :D
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
BoJangles2 has identified a number of features in the vicinity, especially the thread like feature, that are consistent with artefacts in the original imaging or a scanning process. These have then been modified by the jpeg process.

I note in Google Moon there is a destinct equitorial band in the image texture. It is in this band that these features occur. I suggest that this indicates a particular data set was used for this.

typos removed
 
S

SpaceTas

Guest
The dark spots look like dust on the ccd. particularly the worm. Could also be bad removal of cosmic ray hits.
 
S

silylene

Guest
SpaceTas":1xny4dze said:
The dark spots look like dust on the ccd. particularly the worm. Could also be bad removal of cosmic ray hits.
The lunar sandworm could be related to the giant sandworms of Mars. ;)

 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
*mod hat on*
It has been brought to my attention that I overlooked a global ad hom above. I have removed it. For the sake of everyone here, I want you all to know that it is not acceptable to call other members mean names, even in jest. It doesn't matter if you don't name specific users; if it's clear that you're referring to other SPACE.com members, it is not acceptable. Remember, we want everyone to have a *fair* chance, and that means we don't ridicule them. You can attack people's ideas all you want; that's sort of the point of a discussion. But don't attack the people themselves.

Carry on.
*mod hat off*
 
A

aphh

Guest
JonClarke":2fzb315b said:
Sorry, you are still getting things round the wrong way. It is mischieveous to continually suggest that there have been secret missions in the absence of any evidence.
Actually, I'm getting everything the right way and I'm always careful trying not to make claims I could not back. If there was evidence for a secret mission, it wouldn't be secret, now would it?

When you systematically deny possibility of a secret mission using autohoritative argumentation, especially in the light of all the black projects and wrongdoings of governments of the world over the centuries, and not even admit the possibility that there might have been something secret that we're not allowed to know, it does sound like you have a vested interest in doing so.

When we systematically deny something, we also want to achieve something. We want to achieve that what is being denied is not even allowed the possibility to exist thus effectively ruling out one valid path of research whether something existed or not. You can not say something did not exist just because there was no evidence for it. This is why research is made, to find out conclusively whether something exists or not.

Without microscope you would not know whether bacteria exists, yet you might want to deny the possibility of the existence of a bacteria, because it suits your purposes.

If you are being honest, you will atleast admit that. An opinion is still just an opinion, not a fact, no matter how much conceptual evidence you might have gathered.
 
A

aphh

Guest
JonClarke":3cx6y7lh said:
But all this is a degression. Rather than playing games, why don't you determine whether the feature in the OP is actually there? That would actually be useful.
I'm truly surprised I have to read and participate in discussions like this here on space.com, but since the same style seems to prevail on numerous other places these days, perhaps it is not so surprising after all.

There is hardly a way to obtain data about the feature, or other similar interesting features on the Moon, without a mission to actually go there and get the data. For this I have suggested a Moon mission by the citizens, that would observe interesting features not recognized by the existing missions.

I made estimations about the cost and some very preliminary planning in the other threads. Unless such mission can be done, it is pretty pointless to continue the debate with nothing but just conceptual evidence.

Also, the lack of such mission funded directly by citizens tells me we can safely say there is a government monopoly on moon missions, which may affect the reporting about the missions to be one-sided.
 
B

BoJangles2

Guest
Monumental waste of money.

I’ve checked this feature in nasa worldwind moon images, and its nonexistent.

Let’s leave moon missions up to people who actually know what they are doing.
 
J

jim48

Guest
I came here to get the latest on the "thing" on the moon and Y'all are sniping at each other!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY