Structures on the moon?

[Semjase]

The evidence that I that I am presenting here confirms

that there are strucutres on the moon.

 

http://www.educatinghumanity.com/2012/02/alien-moon-base-china-releases-photos.html

 

 

http://www.educatinghumanity.com/2012/07/Moon-Structures-Massive-Building-10-Miles-High-Video.html

 

Who made them for what purpose?

Any other thoughts or other evidence?

 

 

[Moontanman]

I have to admit that if aliens are really here the far side of the moon would be a great place to hide a base...

 

But... if NASA had photographic evidence of aliens on the moon they would be all over television.. NASA would have the funding of it's dreams immediately! I doubt the veracity of these pictures...

[Semjase]

There's lots of unexplanable photos of what appears to

be bases on the moon definitely an interesting subject

below is some Japanese moon surveyor video showing

structures

 

 

 

 

This video is particularly interesting

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wf8TjxV9Vw

Edited January 15, 2013 by Semjase

[Phi for All]

The evidence that I that I am presenting here confirms

that there are strucutres on the moon.

This "evidence", even if it could be called that, might support your stance, but it does NOT confirm your stance. You really need to start making that distinction in your speculations.

[Semjase]

Your correct evidence is too strong a word, I'll correct it by saying if these

videos are real, there appears to be structures on the moon that are not

of a natural origin.

[SamBridge]

It's a trick of shadows. People thought the same thing about the face on Mars, and there are structures that can be naturally rigid. Just look at crystals, there's even perfectly hypercubic or "hopper" crystals that form. The moon is also not a great source of energy unless you can harness nuclear reactions. The moon Io of Jupiter would be a much better source of energy, or Titan the moon of Saturn also would. The moon has Helium 3. When fused, it releases massive amounts of energy, but if aliens were surviving on the moon, there would be sign of nuclear reactions since that's the only efficient way to get large quantities of energy on the moon.

I myself can make plenty of real and surreal textures in photoshop anyway, sometimes with rigid parts depending on what equations I use to manipulate perlin-noise, as well as deep craters. The evidence is insufficient and it would need to be investigated more to have any chance of being right.

It's been 3.8 BILLION years since life first formed on this planet. This planet is as about as hospitabal as it get's and in that 3.8 billion years no other type of life with different base components of DNA or even non DNA life has developed, so what do you even think the likelihood is that not only would another sentient species would have developed in our galaxy, but that it would be advanced enough to both come here AND completely conceal any trace of themselves? It's too unlikely, only 1 in a large handful of planets has any potential to ever become sustainable for life, and even then it still apparently takes a very very very unlikely scenario to make life.

Edited January 15, 2013 by SamBridge

[Semjase]

Your right looks can be decieiving but listen to

Richard C. Hoagland an expert in this field has

to say, he wrote a well respected book called

Dark Mission the inside story about Nasa.

He's interviewed on this link below

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eJJpwTy95Q

 

 

 

 

 

[SamBridge]

Your right looks can be decieiving but listen to

Richard C. Hoagland an expert in this field has

to say, he wrote a well respected book called

Dark Mission the inside story about Nasa.

He's interviewed on this link below

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eJJpwTy95Q

 

 

 

 

 

Every field of science has it's fringe nut-cases. There's even climatologists who say the Earth is cooling down on average, but that's only 3% of them, the rest of the 97% agree its warming up.

[Semjase]

Looked what happened to Galileo for defending heliocentrism, that was claimed

to be heretical. Isn't that true of anyone who goes against the prevailing ideas

of the day.

[ajb]

Looked what happened to Galileo for defending heliocentrism, that was claimed

to be heretical. Isn't that true of anyone who goes against the prevailing ideas

of the day.

 

I am just going to step in and say that comparing yourself, or anyone else you support with Galileo and his treatment by the Catholic Church is a big indicator of "crackpottery". Trying to defend any claims in that way will not work.

[too-open-minded]

You guys, stop feeding the troll!

[Semjase]

 

I am just going to step in and say that comparing yourself, or anyone else you support with Galileo and his treatment by the Catholic Church is a big indicator of "crackpottery". Trying to defend any claims in that way will not work.

 

What I'm saying is people who propose ideas outside of the mainstream ideas of the day

grenerally come under attack and the crackpot label seems to be common, ufos are an

example of that, their ideas are never fairly considered.

[SamBridge]

Looked what happened to Galileo for defending heliocentrism, that was claimed

to be heretical. Isn't that true of anyone who goes against the prevailing ideas

of the day.

He was deemed hysterical by a religious group, not by the scientific community. As people grew of his knowledge it gained support to the point where we started building astral telescopes to see what he was talking about.

[Phi for All]

Your correct evidence is too strong a word, I'll correct it by saying if these

videos are real, there appears to be structures on the moon that are not

of a natural origin.

Evidence is not the problem. Evidence can be judged by how well it supports a hypothesis on its own merit. But even the strongest evidence (which blurry videos and shadowy photos are NOT) does nothing more than SUPPORT an idea, hypothesis or even a full-blown, mainstream scientific theory. It doesn't CONFIRM, it doesn't PROVE, it can only SUPPORT. In this way, we never stop looking for better supported explanations, as we certainly would if we thought we had confirmation or proof. Does that make sense to you?

[Semjase]

I agree even Stephen Hawking said that time travel was considered

scientific heresy is now taking it seriously. I think that these photo

images are an indication that there is possibly something.

[Moontanman]

 

What I'm saying is people who propose ideas outside of the mainstream ideas of the day

grenerally come under attack and the crackpot label seems to be common, ufos are an

example of that, their ideas are never fairly considered.

 

 

"never fairly considered" is putting a positive spin on the problem. the reality is that Governments, The US government in particular actually ran a disinformation campaign against UFOs and ridiculed anyone who tried to seriously study UFOs. Their main investigator Dr. Hynek, eventually quit and went on to support the extra terrestrial origin of UFOs.

 

I think reasonable study could be made to falsify the UFO phenomena, I was hoping that WISE would either detect their bases or mother craft in the Ort cloud or Kuiper belt but I talked to a couple of people who were familiar with WISE and i was told it wasn't capable enough to do that. But a probe similar probe might if it was designed the right way. At least one and in my mind the most likely scenario could be directly tested by science. I won't hijack your thread but I do have a thread on this prospect...

 

A lunar orbiter should be able to confirm or deny those bases quite easily via infrared detection...

[Semjase]

If there's any possiblity of ruins or structures on the moon

I think that people would like to know and it should

be high scientific priority to find out.

If they focused the most powerful telecopes on the lunar

surface would they be able to resolve images of structures

on the lunar surface? Maybe this would get better

results than SETI in finding evidence of extraterrestrial

life.

[Phi for All]

If there's any possiblity of ruins or structures on the moon

I think that people would like to know and it should

be high scientific priority to find out.

 

If they focused the most powerful telecopes on the lunar

surface would they be able to resolve images of structures

on the lunar surface? Maybe this would get better

results than SETI in finding evidence of extraterrestrial

life.

They have done that, with the Hubble telescope:

 

 

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/hubble_moon.html

 

It's not easy, the Hubble wasn't designed to track something moving so quickly across our skies, but this image of the Apollo 17 landing site isn't bad. And other countries have telescopes as well, countries that would love to score a point against NASA. Why do you think they haven't done this yet? Could it be there's not much to see?

[Semjase]

Nasa spend a lot money going to Mars on the opportunity, curiosity

missions to Mars, Nasa went to the moon 40+ years ago, you

would think that a thorough investigation of the moon would

make logical sense first. With these controversial images,

that could possibly be structures on the surface of the moon,

maybe there's a reason why they didn't go back.

Here's a news article about moon bases

it's quite revealing

 

http://news.exopoliticsinstitute.org/index.php/36960/

 

 

 

[D H]

Richard C. Hoagland an expert in this field ...

Yes, he's an expert -- in the field of hoaxes, that is.

 

Why do you fall for every bit of nonsense on the internet?

[Semjase]

When you apply the word hoax to information

on moon structures, then all ufo information would also

have to discredited, all photo images would have to

be faked, all people who have come forward with

first hand inside information of a coverup would

have to be liars, all this would have to be true

if moon structures were not possible,

it makes no sense of any kind.

[John Cuthber]

When you apply the word hoax to information

on moon structures, then all ufo information would also

have to discredited, all photo images would have to

be faked, all people who have come forward with

first hand inside information of a coverup would

have to be liars, all this would have to be true

if moon structures were not possible,

it makes no sense of any kind.

No, not really.

Most of the UFO stuff is, of course, discredited. Much of it is misinterpretation too.

The people may be mistaken or delusional. (Though quite a lot of them seem to be making a better living out of it than I am)

So all that could quite easily be true.

So it does make sense.

 

but that's enough troll food for one day.

[SamBridge]

When you apply the word hoax to information

on moon structures, then all ufo information would also

have to discredited, all photo images would have to

be faked, all people who have come forward with

first hand inside information of a coverup would

have to be liars, all this would have to be true

if moon structures were not possible,

it makes no sense of any kind.

They would be liars, but it doesn't mean they did it on purpose, that's merely how the described whatever experience they had because they didn't know how else to rationalize it, They could have had a seizure, accidentally (or purposely ingested a drug, had a stroke, had a lucid and vivid dream, or just misinterpreted what was physically happening. Like if an airplane is coming right at you from very far away, it looks like it's staying still, so when it curves it would look like it was stationary then it somehow moved a perpendicular direction right when it wanted to.