Farside buildings

[zorgon]

No no no. I'm agreeing with you. 100% there's nothing up there.

I would expect such a line from an ex Army Cyber Intel Agent



My bad

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

 

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

I would expect such a line from an ex Army Cyber Intel Agent



My bad

'These are not the droids you're looking for'

[1Worldwatcher]

Thanks for your honest reply ArMap, I do understand what you are saying, I do know that 'Sometimes' the mind can trick itself from what is really being looked at or seen, and I do know there is 'Color' alternatives too take into consideration. And for this, you have my respect, but not my confidence.

I find it hard too believe that there is little to "NO" possibility of these photographed artifacts not being what we see them to be. Even with "63 Year Old Eyes" Sgt. I am 48 with some vision issues too, but clearly see things you are bringing to our attention. And as far as the 'Color' of out lines, I was just openly stating my eye sight has a hard time seeing the red out lines, I am color blind....LOL True as it is , works great for hunting ring necks, but for traffic lights and other facilitated uses of the colors of red, green and brown, that is my personal issue.

Another point I would like to bring up is the fact of how we are using same satellite technology too locate ancient civilization occupations on our own planet. "Why would they resort to something that is in your eyes (ArMap) that is so controversial for geological interpretation?" I mean, lets face it, satellite imaging is no different from one situation to the next, and I am an avid follower of archaeological exploration and finds, it is a testament of technology that seemingly has worked very well for finding such obscure and hidden places. This is also what one would expect for the Lunar surface as too allocate and discern probable associations with in such fine remnants and constructs of such research and investigative insights. I, for one, think we aren't looking at natural formed phenomena, this is clearly a representation of what one would see if we "Could' put boots on the ground and look for them on the Lunar surface ourselves.

I hope that Sgt. and the rest here don't ever quit this type of discussion and research, until we can get a man on the moon representing us honestly, we will always have skepticism and debate, but for the most part, the technologies being used are being used with in these field of research right here on good old Mother Earth, and that is something I know you cannot argue with. It is fact and is proving to be the most efficient way of doing archaeological digs without having to trek through unforgiving land masses and terrain, with no idea where too look. Which, with in the Archaeological community, is openly welcomed and accepted as a proper way of locating and finding such ancient remnants of these lost civilizations. IMHO.

1WW

[ArMaP]

And for this, you have my respect, but not my confidence.

Thanks for the first, I don't understand the second.

I find it hard too believe that there is little to "NO" possibility of these photographed artifacts not being what we see them to be.

First of all, I am never 100% sure of anything, so I never say that any thing (specially on an old photo of the Moon) cannot be something besides what I think it is.
Second, there's the problem of the "what we see them to be", as different "we" see different things; you may see a mining operation while I see just natural features. The only thing we can be almost 100% sure is that one of us is probably wrong.

I am 48 with some vision issues too, but clearly see things you are bringing to our attention.

I'm two weeks away from 50 and in need of changing the lens on my glasses.

Another point I would like to bring up is the fact of how we are using same satellite technology too locate ancient civilization occupations on our own planet. "Why would they resort to something that is in your eyes (ArMap) that is so controversial for geological interpretation?"

Do they rely on just one photo and one interpretation?

That's the same thing I say about using Google Earth to analyse Moon or Mars (or even Earth) photos; Google Earth is good for a starting point, it's not good enough (and we have better sources) to make a more or less good analysis.

Using satellite photos to get an idea of (what could be) an archaeology site is just one of the tools available to archaeologists, in the same way they have been using aerial photos to help them since they noticed that some features were easily seen from above, besides other things they have been using for centuries, like some kinds of plants that prefer rocky ground growing along walls, making a kind of map of underground buildings.

I, for one, think we aren't looking at natural formed phenomena, this is clearly a representation of what one would see if we "Could' put boots on the ground and look for them on the Lunar surface ourselves.

That's the problem, specially when we use only one photo, we are limited to what we think those things are. From what I have seen, every time I find a second photo (or a better version of the same photo), everything looks natural.

I hope that Sgt. and the rest here don't ever quit this type of discussion and research...

So do I, what I would like was for a less "us and them" situation when people just post their own opinions, instead of being treated as an some kind of enemy.

If we want to know instead of believe then, the first thing we should do, is to accept different opinions.

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

I have stated many, many times that these are things that I 'think I see'. If you don't see the same thing, fine. No problem. I do this because I enjoy it. I have found many an interesting rock/geological formation, hell some even look like buildings. But I know there's a possability they aren't really there, just tricks of light and poor resolution of photos that are 30, 40 years old. I wonder though how those aerial photo interpreters in WWII discovered and could differentiate between trees and rocks that there were actually V2 rockets/trucks/buildings? Just the minds eye trying to convert 2d to 3d I guess.

(as a side note. My last vid was done with a scan of a photo that John Lear sent me. He asked me to take a look and see if I thought there was anything on this photo, cause he actually did. I didn't think it proper to use another photo.)(I have downloaded literally thousands of photos. I have a great amount of space to save photos.)( Anytime someone has a better resolution photo, I'll go and download it and use it)

I'm going back to searching now and I'll post what I think I see.

As 1WW says 'With great Respect'..

Peace
Rock...

[ArMaP]

I wonder though how those aerial photo interpreters in WWII discovered and could differentiate between trees and rocks that there were actually V2 rockets/trucks/buildings? Just the minds eye trying to convert 2d to 3d I guess.

I suppose they are more than one photo and that they were better than 30 or 40 years old photos.

Anytime someone has a better resolution photo, I'll go and download it and use it

True, I have seen you do that more than once.

I'm going back to searching now and I'll post what I think I see.

I will wait, then I will post what I think I see, obviously.

As 1WW says 'With great Respect'..

Always.

[rdunk]

Look guys, there are many who are NEVER going to admit to seeing an anomalous object, solely on the basis that a "skeptic" just doe not believe they exist. There are a "gazillion" reasons that can always be easily fabricated to explain anomalies away. Some skeptics do it very diplomatically, and others do it very direct and argumentatively, taking their response to "making it personal". And in some cases (other websites), I have seen the "skeptics" respond as if on a very coordinated basis......for whatever reason.

But, while the skeptic members do have the same right as all to express forum opinion, we should take it for what it is, and continue to develop what we feel are the facts of what we believe to be "true anomalies".

Skeptic activity is not simply isolated individual eventism. It is a learning process based approach to the particular thought process of "fact denial". For instance, there is a large "Skeptic's Dictionary" on-line that can help us understand where the skeptics approach to thought comes from. Here is a link to that dictionary for review by anyone interested:

http://skepdic.com/

So, we shouldn't get too bothered by negative comments presented by folks known to be 99%+ skeptical in all prior comments. We know where they are coming from, take it for what it is, and move on forward!   

I do believe the below image is appropriate to reflect the true definition of skepticism. Forget the printed words on the image, and just think "SKEPTIC"! 


                                                     

[ArMaP]

Look guys, there are many who are NEVER going to admit to seeing an anomalous object, solely on the basis that a "skeptic" just doe not believe they exist.

Wrong, it's not a question of believing or not believing in something, it's a question of seeing all the possibilities without having a preferred answer.

There are a "gazillion" reasons that can always be easily fabricated to explain anomalies away.

No need to fabricate anything, is it that difficult to accept that other people may see things in a different way?

But, while the skeptic members do have the same right as all to express forum opinion, we should take it for what it is, and continue to develop what we feel are the facts of what we believe to be "true anomalies".

I agree.

It is a learning process based approach to the particular thought process of "fact denial".

Wrong, look at a real definition.

For instance, there is a large "Skeptic's Dictionary" on-line that can help us understand where the skeptics approach to thought comes from.

What do you mean, that that site is some kind of "sceptics bible"?

So, we shouldn't get too bothered by negative comments presented by folks known to be 99%+ skeptical in all prior comments.

Comments from sceptics shouldn't be negative, even if they are contrary to your opinions/beliefs, and you shouldn't think of a different opinion as a negative comment.
(If I have ever made a negative comment please point me to it so I can apologise for it to the affected person(s))

We know where they are coming from, take it for what it is, and move on forward!

Apparently, you do not.

I do believe the below image is appropriate to reflect the true definition of skepticism.

Wrong again.

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

 

[rdunk]

armap said, "What do you mean, that that site is some kind of "sceptics bible"?"

...

Well, when one looks at its voluminous content of "skeptic thought",  "skeptic's bible" would be a pretty fair description for its intended purpose, doncha think?

Can you think of any other possible purpose for creating and maintaining such a large database of purely "skeptical thought" on almost every conceivable subject, and then some!

Here are specific quotes from the author of the Skeptic's Dictionary, relative to its purpose (found in its "Introduction") :

The Skeptic's Dictionary provides definitions, arguments, and essays on subjects supernatural, occult, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. I use the term "occult" to refer to any and all of these subjects.

The Skeptic's Dictionary will provide the soft skeptic with evidence and arguments, as well as references to more evidence and arguments, on occult issues.

The hardened skeptic doesn't need much more in the way of evidence or argument to be convinced that any given occult claim is probably based on error or fraud. Still, The Skeptic's Dictionary has something for the hardened skeptic, too: It will provide ammunition against the incessant arguments of true believers.

The one group that this book is not designed for is that of the true believers. My studies have convinced me that arguments or data critical of their beliefs are always considered by the true believer to be insignificant, irrelevant, manipulative, deceptive, not authoritative, unscientific, unfair, biased, closed-minded, irrational, and/or diabolical. (It is perhaps worth noting that except for the term "diabolical," these are the same terms some hardened skeptics use to describe the studies and evidence presented by true believers.)

[ArMaP]

Well, when one looks at its voluminous content of "skeptic thought",  "skeptic's bible" would be a pretty fair description for its intended purpose, doncha think?

Well, that may be the intention of the site owner, but a real sceptic doesn't need a site or a book to tell him/her what to do, a sceptic applies his/her scepticism in everything he/she does and to all the information that reaches him/her.

In fact, I am very sceptical about that site.

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

In fact, I am very sceptical about that site.

Obviously

[zorgon]

it's a question of seeing all the possibilities without having a preferred answer.

However there is also another factor.  The "I see nothing but blurry rocks" factor.  There are people who will look at the greyscale images and truly all they can see are blurry rocks... while others can spot details as plain as day.  Is it their monitor? Is it their vision? Or does their mind simply not accept it?

Others that can see it immediately are usually artistic and others get hired by the military image processing outfits. I was actually offered such a position... in hind sight I should have accepted

It is really a futile endeavor for either side to try to convince the other... though once in a while eyes can be opened as happened with TheBorg at ATS.  One day he saw what I saw... clearly because he had finally gotten the scale into his mind. After that he found many more himself

The RAF Penemunde photograph is a perfect example  Look at the objects labelled rocket and trailer.  This image was used as bombing target selection

[ArMaP]

It is really a futile endeavor for either side to try to convince the other... though once in a while eyes can be opened as happened with TheBorg at ATS.  One day he saw what I saw... clearly because he had finally gotten the scale into his mind. After that he found many more himself

I usually don't have any problems seeing what other people see, in fact, I think I have been more on the side of other people not seeing what I see (usually rocks).

The RAF Penemunde photograph is a perfect example  Look at the objects labelled rocket and trailer.  This image was used as bombing target selection

I doubt that bad digital copy was the one they used.