My Findings

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by btimsah, Feb 1, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    These are probably my best findings to date - Or rocks.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    (It's important to understand the fact that these images I got are from 2 damn sites on the whole internet. Almost every other site which contains these Lunar Orbiter images do not contain the quality, size and detail these do. It's amazing that only one or two sites has them, and is why they've not been seen elsewhere.)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Okay, I have more but these are the most interesting ones. The last one is cool because it looks like someone tried to cut the "structure off".
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Silas asimovbot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    Contextless, too small, too little detail, and I'm sorry, btimsah, but again you really have to point out (maybe with captions) exactly what it is you see in any of these pictures which is self-evidently artificial. I mean, some of these (3-6 in particular) are just pictures of boulder fields - what the hell are we supposed to be seeing here?

    The only picture I would say which is genuinely anomalous is no. 2.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    What Silas said. No scale, no supporting information, and quite frankly, nothing odd.

    What do you see?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. kornrulz Satan is a Nerd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    98
    I'm as confused as a blind lesbian in a fish market.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. kornrulz Satan is a Nerd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    98
    I'm as confused as a blind lesbian in a fish market.
     
  9. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    I too find the second image interesting, but I lack knowledge in geology to understand it.
     
  10. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
  11. Star_One Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    268
    He is more than crazy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    , makes some of us look normal!

    One question though, anyone know if those "sars babys" are real, and what is wrong with them?
     
  12. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
  13. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    btimsah - re your latest suite of anomalous photos:

    Let's try one more time. There seem to me two possibilities:
    1. You genuinely wish to convince people that there is something anomalous in these pictures that is worthy of further investigation.
    2. You are jerking our chain; indulging in some personal fantasy; are on an extended, drug induced sensory overload; or some combination of the above.

    There is no reasonable action we can take if it is the latter, so I shall assume it is the former. If you wish people to take a serious interest in your material then you have to be more precise, more scientific in what you are presenting. Several individuals, most recently Silas and phlogistician, have requested this before. May I ask why you persist in not providing such information?

    If you provided these following data for each photo you presented then it would a) reveal that you understood the importance of proper documentation, b) encourage readers to take a less dismissive view of your submissions.

    Where on the lunar surface is each photograph located?
    (Latitude and Longitude; named location, e.g. north west edge of Mare Serenatis)
    Smaller scale photograph, showing location of frame in broader context
    What is the scale of the photograph?
    Date and time of photograph.
    Orientation of photograph.
    Source of photograph - i.e. Which spacecraft (This is the only information you provided for these photographs)
    URL of source (On this point, frankly I am pretty offended. You can't go around quoting books, internet sites, scientific papers, etc without providing sufficient information to allow others to verify what you are saying. That is fundamental to good science. This thread may be in the pseudoscience section, but if point 1 above is your true motive, then you presumably would like to see it eventually upgraded to the science section. In which case, stop insulting us by failure to provide proper references. It may be that you were unaware how offensive this is. You know now. Please don't repeat the lapse.)

    Picture 2 is the first anomalous picture you have shown us. It is actually interesting. I find it peculiar and am not sure what to make of it. If I had the information outlined above it would be much easier to proceed with a sensible analysis.

    There are two things I noticed about the picture:
    The sharpness of the central ‘object’ compared with all the other photos, makes this appear as if it has been manipulated by a photo editing program.
    There is a coloured ‘sheen’ concentrated on the highlights of the ‘object’. This is reminiscent of the effect one sees on 3-D photos.

    Btimsah, please note I am not drawing any conclusions from these two points, nor formulating any hypotheses. I am simply making observations, the starting point of good science. However, any explanation of this anomalous photo would have to account for these two observations.
     
  14. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    I am starting to feel better and most of drugs are out of my system.. well except for the dizzying/blurring flu meds..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    As for the images, I recently started naming these images based on the image they come from. For instance: LO3-112-H2-(FAR-RIGHT).

    Im having a hard time finding the apollo image #2 is based on. I might just go pass out and die, or try to find the original image.. not sure which yet.
     
  15. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    I'm going to draw a line here. This line is nothing personal to you Btimsah, however the content of your topic has been done by others over and over again. Pictures of rocks located throughout our known universe from NASA's vast library of pictures with some contorted understanding of whats being presented (or not being presented)

    So my decision is this. NO MORE ROCK PICTURE's (and threads) Period.

    I know some of you guys and girls want to find a "Smoking gun" supporting some pet theory, however it's not going to happen looking at pictures that you yourselves have not taken (If something was to be found there don't you think those that take the pictures would be the discoverers?)

    So please from now on use only pictures you have taken.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page