Rock/Structure Redux.

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by btimsah, Feb 17, 2005.

  1. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    When I said weathering, I was referring to wind and rain. Are you saying the Moon has wind and rain?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    No, but you were clearly implying that because there is no wind/rain, that regoliths and other formations that are obviously present couldn't have been formed without some wildly speculative explanation like intelligent influence, etc.

    The big mystery isn't the rocks on the moon (whether you like it or not, this refers to everything from the tallest mountain to the tiniest grain of soil) and how they came to be as they are, it's why don't you have the basic education to figure it out for yourself.

    Instead of reading a book, going to a library, or enrolling in college, you troll the science boards with woo-woo nonsense about rocks on the moon being intelligently built structures.

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/18/6847
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    Yeah, I decided it would be useless not to respond in this one. But this is the only one. Oh no, I started a sentence with a but. Oph is gonna kill me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If I can post an image then what process created this unusual feature?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://img128.exs.cx/img128/3319/screenhunter0358yw.jpg

    Here's all the information below (that I have) about the image in question.

    High Quality Image: LO5-70-H2B
    Incidence: 70
    Emission: 13
    Altitude: 113.1
    PP Lat: 17.3
    PP Lon: 26.3
    Corrected Resolution: 1.7
    Medium Resolution Image: http://cps.earth.northwestern.edu/LO/lo5-70-m.tif
    Anomaly Location: Center-left.

    I guess we could say it's a rock, since the entire Moon is a rock..
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2005
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    No, I was not "trying" to say that. I was saying that some of the natural rocks you showed may have been created by processes not possible on the Moon. It's really not that complicated..

    You are trying to make this about ME, and my lack of an education regarding the Moon. When really it's just about you're misinterpretation of what I wrote.
     
  8. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    If it gets so old then don't visit the Pseudoscience area. You love arguing about this stuff.

    I am asking you to name the process that could create some of the strange structure-like features, or even rocks. That's all I've asked for. MOST of the time all I got back was personal attacks and just a one word response as to what it HAS TO BE.

    A big problem here is you're bizzare desire to use the pseudoscience area, and then COMPLAIN about the pseudoscience in it. You seem to blame me, Bradguth and Fluid for you're own mistakes.

    The reason it get's old is because you rarely offer an example of the process that could create such a rock. I am then left to assume you are merely guessing. Not just you, but this is in response to you're rather useless post.
     
  9. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    My purpose for showing those rocks apparently went over your head. Go back and look at the quote just above them and then note that each included the word "rock." I wasn't in any way suggesting that the same geologic processes and mechanisms exist on Earth as on the Moon or vice-versa, though some do.

    You got me there. I do have some fascination with it. But I ended up putting bradguth and fluid on "ignore." You haven't reached those heights and I doubt you will. In spite of my earlier suspicion that you were fluid, you're not nearly as irritating. Hell, one or two of my "fellow skeptics" are more irritating that you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is the "pseudoscience" sub forum of a "science" message board. This is where those that understand the scientific method and respect it come to discuss pseudoscience ("false" science; science which is fake). In this forum, I believe pseudoscience should be exposed not lauded, revered, or congratulated.

    Science=good
    Pseudoscience=bad

    You rarely offer more than a blurry photo of an object without context or hypothesis. In the case of moon rocks, its obvious that the geologic process is one of the following: volcanic, impact-related (craters, ejecta, fissures), solar wind/cosmic effects, etc. There is not, as you've pointed out, any erosional forces such as wind or rain. There aren't any lifeforms (such as termites or ants) to create landforms. Man's impact has been insignificantly small (a few foot prints, rover tracks, etc.)

    What's left? Without clearer, more precise photographs or radar data that include contexts such as other regional landforms (i.e. craters have been demonstrated to have been created by impact, filled with lava, then have subsequent impacts to give an overall strange morphological appearance).

    Instead, you waltz into this subforum, thinking that its a woo-woo site, post your rock pictures and wait for either: 1) everyone to pat you on the back for being so astonishingly observant and how did NASA ever miss what you've figured out?; or 2) I'll stir up the debunkers and troll them into arguments and create some validity for myself since its obvious that they want to suppress my vast knowledge and keep me down like a modern-day Galileo, but they just don't know, my Copernican side is going to come out!; or 3) both.

    Having said that, my real expectation is that those lurkers that don't post but read sites like this will see more than one side of an argument, so I'm not just referring to you in the paragraph above when I say "you," I'm referring to all the wild claims proponents that come here with the same expectations of a Pseudoscience forum, even if it is at a Science message board: "a new home... maybe they won't ban me like they did at BadAstronomy."

    Nobody ever gets banned a sciforums.

    Except crazymikey

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    btimsah, I am a vastly more experienced writer than I am a geologist. Writing and speaking earn me a living. So, you can rely upon my assurance that, under certain circumstances, it is acceptable to begin a sentence with 'And'. You just have to be sure you do it in the right circumstances. And it is also acceptable, aforementioned constraints applying, to begin a sentence with 'But'. [You can even end it with a preposition. As Churchill remarked sarcastically, "that is a practice up with which I will not put."]

    Now back to the Phoenix like topic of moon structures. You said "While those rocks do create some interesting shapes, the Moon does not have the weathering mechinisms to create them."
    I am waiting for your response to my post, which provided three serious mechanisms. You appear to have three options:
    a) Concede that you had not fully appreciated the range or significance of available lunar weathering mechanisms.
    b) Claim that this was a typographical error, or an error of expression.
    c) Continue to ignore the post and hope I go away.

    a) Would earn you a lot of respect.
    b) Would earn you a few laughs.
    c) I don't go away. I'm having too much fun.
     
  11. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    I know you werent suggesting that.

    Gee, thanks.

    How do you know there are not any structures on the Moon? Have we investigated every rock? There seem's to be this allready assumed FACT that there are not any alien structures in space. Basing that as a fact IS BAD SCIENCE because you have no way of knowing that yet.

    At least I am basing my decision on images that I think reveal potential structures. I am not sure what you are basing you're decision on. How do you KNOW FOR A FACT that there are no structures on the Moon? The Moon is very old, and untill we know for sure there was never any intelligent life on it there's no way to claim that "alien structures = bad science". We just don't know enough yet.

    above, I offered a clear photo, with context. I cannot offer a hypothesis on this one because I have no clue what the hell that thing is. I suppose it looks alien.. lol Some are blurry, some are not. I agree that I don't offer a hypothesis because often I can't explain the images. That's why I find them interesting to begin with.

    I would love clearer more precise photographs. This is why I want more attention paid to any anomaly on the Moon or Mars. One closeup shot could solve the most important question in Astronomy. Are we alone? This is why I post these images, to get suggestions as to what it could be, then to suggest that NASA has never mentioned these bizzare features before and ask why, and then suggest we should investigate these type of things further but NASA is never interested in them. Hell, the biggest anomaly the face seems to piss NASA off.. lol It's beyond frustrating.

    Some of them can't be rocks, some are. I did not know what to expect at this site, but it's better too have a nice mix of what you would call woo-woo's and what I would call debunker's. The two extremes can keep eachother in check.

    My claims are not that wild.. It's not really even me making the claim. I am basing it on witneses, images, the military and NASA's operating procedures to come to some very possible conclusions. I tend to always come back to the fact that we don't know if ETI exists yet, but that does not make it wild to suggest they do. It just means we don't know for sure yet, either way.

    In some ways, I think woo-woos and debunker's probably split on that line. Debunker's feel aliens do no exist - untill they have been proven too. That's a nice hard line to take, but reality does not work that way.

    That's unfortunate, from what I read his UFO/Alien stuff was very intelligently written.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    You are not supposed to start a sentence with a conjunction! But I see no problem with it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Because it makes for more clear writing sometimes. I was just giving you crap. So when someone tells you not to start a sentence with a conjunction, say: "But I've already done it."

    No, I said I understand there are other ways in which rocks could be created on the Moon. I was Just illustrating that the feature that created those he showed on Earth may have been created by processes not available on the Moon. I suppose I would pick B because apperently the way I wrote it made you both believe something else.
     
  13. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    see quote. I'm sure you have heard it all before..

    Sure it's possible that there are structures on the moon. The photos you have posted are not convincing anyone though.
     
  14. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    We have clearer photos of the face. It is not much of an anomaly at all.
     
  15. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    The reason they are not convincing anyone, is because NASA did not see them. So, you and others here CANNOT accept that, I, alone found them.

    I missed the part where you told me what this was:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    Can you name one thing that IS an anomaly on another planet, moon or asteroid?
     
  17. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Wow. You found a blurry photo of a rock. The reason no one has told you what made this rock is that it cannot be discerned from the poor resolution. But I'm sure you see a "structure" that cannot be made by anything other than some intelligence, right?

    You realize of course that "anomaly" means that which is outside the norm of expectation, right?

    There are many things that rise above the norm on other planets, moons or asteroids. Saturn has rings that are quite pronounced. Mars has Olympus Mons. Now Mars also has a frozen sea of water (most likely) that is larger than that of the Great Lakes. All anomalies. We have an anomaly right here on Earth: the 50 Km wide Richat Structure in Mauritania
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2005
  18. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    The image resolution is too poor to explain the process that created the rock, but it's good enough for you to KNOW FOR A FACT that it's a rock?

    First of all the image quality is excellent. Here's the thing at 100%

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Then we go a bit closer:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Oh no! It's blurry! Oh wait, no it's not.. It's still clear.. damn!

    At higher resolutions it's still viewable with quite abit of detail left due to the HIGH quality of these images.

    Have you really even examined this image? Come on, be honest..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    Are these all rocks as well?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Eros has some VERY fascinating surface features. The problem is the camera used is not the best in the world, and does not provide very clear, crisp images. SO IN THIS CASE THEY ARE FUZZY photographs.

    I believe Eros actually has more strange features, than the moon. However, because of the lack of quality images everything is obscure and hard to see clearly.

    For example;

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    There's a black line which appears to be an image problem. A lot of images from the NEAR website are like this. So, the image quality of the Moon images are almost beautifull compared to this!
     
  20. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Of course. Its either a rock or an artifact in the image itself. There's nothing else on the Moon except rocks and the stuff we left there during the Apollo missions.

    And the image quality is poor in the blown up version. Sorry. It may be an "excellent" resolution, but when enlarged we're still limited by the number of pixels the original image was able to capture. At best, we're able to see about 100 meters or so per pixel. Often, the best is about a Km. But you want to discuss "structures" with images that can't provide information.

    If you really want to discuss this sort of thing seriously, go to Google and search for Mark Carlotto. Most of his research is in relation to the Cydonia region of Mars, but he also has done some stuff with the Moon. Search for "mark carlotto moon axis" and see what you get.
     
  21. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    You have no evidence that theres nothing else on the moon except rocks. You also have not explained the process that created this "rock". Because, you, like me, have no idea what that is.
     
  22. Laika Space Bitch Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    638
    I realise that it wasn't btsimah who started the topic, but isn't it more likely that the "brick" in the locked 'PROOF of MARTIAN CIVILIZATION' thread is a ventifact? Such angular rocks are very common on Mars.
     
  23. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Agreed. 100%. Someone, somewhere, spouted the nonsense that you don't get straight lines in nature, and some of that nonsense fell on fertile ground.
    I see it's your first post here. Welcome on board. I hope you don't suffer the fate of your namesake!
     

Share This Page