>>15554534 The image on the left was taken by an independent astronomer, while the image on the right is courtesy of NASA. Why do you suppose that some of NASA's images show clear indications that they have been obscured in some way?
>>15554721 I'd appreciate it if instead of just throwing out an assertion that the images I share don't make any sense: You could explain what about it doesn't make sense. Contrary to what is stated about me, if someone is legitimately having a hard-time seeing what I try to point out, I try to be helpful. One of the amusing aspects of this is how It's been requested of me to high-light relevant features and make comparisons: Then I get statements to the effect of >>"Hurr! Random lines drawn over my images are proof of aliums!" As if being stupid enough to not understand how high-lighting works invalidates genuine anomalies. Being that that's the caliber of discrediting attempts that are put forth, I wonder who they expect to convince that this is all bogus.
>>15554756 The file extension is clearly .png . . . Okay then, thank you too.
>>15554767 >>15554786 How many of you actually looked at the image in question and were utterly confused by these posts as a result?
>>15554869 There have been many documentaries on this topic but one thing I've encouraged people to do is to go out on a clear night and take their own images of the Moon. With the current capabilities of digital cameras, you don't actually need to have a telescope to get some remarkable details.
>>15555066 i asked a simple question. >>15554786 >image on the left is low res with increased brightness. image on the right is high res with increased contrast. what else are we supposed to be seeing in these images?
>>15555066 I personally can't tell what you did with the comparison, your squiggles do make it hard to see anything and I don't really know what you were highlighting.
Could you link me to some videos about this? Are there some really good ones to check out? Most of the ones I come across are to low resolution or blurry to really make heads or tails of the anomalies.
>>15555162 First of all, explain how the image on the left can be lower res, when it clearly shows more detail. As for what you are supposed to be seeing, look carefully at the lines and angles, also note the characteristics of translucency and what is revealed when you take that into account.
>>15555176 Hopefully the post above helps. For videos, I recommend Bill Bryson, Crow777 and Jose Escamila on youtube for starters.
>>15555332 > explain how the image on the left can be lower res, when it clearly shows more detail But it doesn't. The image on the right is much clearer, sharper, and has much more defined features, especially obvious in the craters.
Your comparison doesn't really work either. The image on the right shows a "square" like shape highlighted at the top, but the image on the left doesn't show this. This would mean that the independent astronomer must have photoshopped that out.
There's also two kind of "T" shapes on the image on the right (lowest and furthest right highlighted objects) which are also missing from the image on the left.
If NASA are obscuring things like you claim, then how come these features don't appear in the other image?
>>15555504 Fair enough, the Moon has numerous structures, look carefully and you can recognize that not everything that we are told is a crater is actually a crater: The majority of them can actually be identified as immense walled citadels and ancient collapsed domes. If you are familiar with the research of Carl Munck, then you are also aware of the significance, antiquity and universal nature of circular structures, how they can be used and how advanced they actually are. The encircled walls often feature towering sections and buttresses, as well as more specialized structures towards the center. Intact domes and various individual structures are evident as well. It can be difficult to make them out at first and this is because they are translucent and constructed based on holographic -meaning in this case primarily that their appearance changes based on viewing distance more then would occur with other structural components- principles and materials: A type of highly-refined glass in this case. They would have to be in order to display the optical properties observed. Especially their translucency. Take note of that characteristic inside of the high-lighting I have performed in the comparison images here: >>15554636 and you can see the towering opaque structures. Furthermore, silicate would be an abundant building material for an advanced space-faring civilization: In addition to It's ready availability, it also takes on a tensile strength greater then steel when processed in an anhydrous airless environment. Furthermore, it can be readily impregnated with nano-technological circuitry, photovoltaic materials, you name it. It's actually a highly advanced material when you explore It's possibilities. There are numerous sources or independent confirmation confirming this. All it takes is knowing what you are actually looking at. A further point that bolsters this is revealed when we consider the high reflectivity of the Moon's surface at large.
All green of skin... 800 centuries ago, their bodily fluids include the birth of half-breeds. For the fundamental truth self-determination of the cosmos, for dark is the suede that mows like a harvest.
>>15558848 This raises more questions than it provides answers (and the answers it provides weren't really asked for anyway...). As a general disclaimer to this post, I am "skeptical" in the sense that I have no reason to believe what you're saying, but do not necessarily DISbelieve what you're saying. I do not necessarily believe you are right or wrong, and request information which might sway me one way or the other.
What specific reasons do you have for holding the perspective that many craters on the moon are (mostly collapsed) domes made from highly advanced (meta)materials rather than the "widely accepted" theory that they're craters from meteor impact? From your post it would seem that you're saying the moon previously had some civilization, but who were they, where did they come from, and why would they build on the moon, which lacks an atmosphere and many of the resources required by humans for civilization? Furthermore, what particular reason would NASA have for concealing the existence of these structures (if the answer is related to "because <shadowy organization>", I would like to know specifically why <shadowy organization> wants that secrecy)?
Unrelated to the questioning, IIRC the moon isn't actually a very good reflector; the sun is just so bright that the little light that gets reflected still looks like a lot.
>>15554636 >>15556397 >>15556595 Thats because the one on the right is a composite image made with close up shots, while the left is with a wide angle lens from far away. If you look closely you can see vertical "scanlines" where the photos have been merged.
This is common practice when making high resolution pictures of planets.
>>15558869 Implying that your conclusions must be in lock-step with what is considered possible by enforced consensus is what really doesn't make sense. However, It's certainly easier on the intellectual faculties, isn't it?
>>15558902 At this rate, I'm more curious what your obsession is with asserting that well-thought out posts must be the product of mental-illness. In reading between the lines, It's apparent that such posts are the equivalent of stating that you don't wish for the post you target to be taken seriously: So you just hit-and-run a shit-post to reinforce the concept that such conclusions are only held by undesirables suffering from delusions of grandeur bought on by some manifestation of cognitive disorder. I've deliberately satirized this in previous threads and It's significant that my posts are targeted in this manner. It's a grand irony that with one single, -albeit repetitious- implication, you actually end up serving to illuminate what is significant knowledge. Due to the fact that you are the one employing pathological thinking in order to deny it. Face it, if you have resort to asserting that someone pointing out something must be insane for doing so: Without actually demonstrating that what they posit is definitively false. Then that is the height of paranoia, it shows that you are afraid of their claims. It's very esoteric but It's actually a fundamental part of how conscious expansion functions.
>>15558957 We can't be certain of where they came from. Unless you simply consider all life as manifestation of an inherent quality of the cosmos. We do know that we are related to them, this is made apparent from accounts of their presence and involvement with us and travel between Worlds from the most ancient cultures. Proven not just by advanced structures from that time left behind here on Earth: Yet also by that when you look at the details of these structures off our planet, you notice common motifs and details.
>>15559612 I didn't intend to ignore it, I'm just taking my time. Way to show your desperation by jumping the gun though. Thanks. First of all, if you really don't think it suspicious that the image on the right has so much less fine detail: To the point where you can see pixelation, then you need to look again and ask yourself why that is. Even more remarkable is how we fine form of increased detail in older images of the Moon, such as those taken by Lick observatory back in the 1950's. Keep in mind that they were using film, so it can't be glitching, as some might claim. Finally, context is what ultimately proves artificiality in addition to indications of intelligent design and geometry. In case of Aristarchus, the rectilinear formation associated with the region is significant when taken into account with certain features of "Crater" Aristarchus itself and the broader context of the true nature of the Moon itself. Here is a good video from Crrow777 on the topic.
>>15560784 Nice attack the source fallacy. Thank you, come again.
>>15558957 As for why this information faces suppression, there are actually multiple reasons for that. Looking up the Brooking's report is an eye-opener on the subject. The reasons for keeping the reality and closeness of Our Cosmic Ancestors secret has only evolved over time. From being based primarily in fear of the unknown: To how the unveiling of this would upset the current hegemony. Once enough of the population fully absorbs and acknowledges all that this entails: They are going to start clamoring for answers and access to all the with-held information regarding this. In addition to demanding that our standard of living and way of life be updated to emulate the best aspects and capacities of our interstellar neighbors.
>>15560768 >the image on the right has so much less fine detail We clearly aren't looking at the same image then. Because the one on the right has way more fine detail than the one on the left.
You also once again ignored those very valid posts pointing out how things clearly visible on the image on the right are missing from the one on the left, despite the one on the right having things "obscured" by NASA.
>how we fine form of increased detail in older images of the Moon I'm not sure what you are saying here in regards to the film photos. Did you mean "how we find forms"?
>>15560903 So, you're seriously going to just assert that your claim is correct, without doing anything to attempt to meet the burden of proof for that claim. If it were obvious, then it should be easy for you to do that. You also assert that I am ignoring a post that has been effectively addressed: While you are ignoring other images that consistently show greater resolution then some of NASA's own images. When independent astronomers using Telescopes and Camera's in their own back yards can obtain higher-resolution images of the Moon then NASA would have us believe they can capture with multi-million dollar images from orbit with the Moon: Furthermore, NASA has leaked high-definition images before and the same structures are revealed when their images are enhanced to remove their efforts at obscuration. Finally, more then one person has testified to the fact that NASA edits such things out of their images. How much more confirmation do we need? Thanks again.
>>15560953 None of the images you posted have greater resolution than the NASA image you posted though.
Your claim is demonstrably wrong just by looking at the two images. The picture on the left is soft and lacking in sharp definable features. The image on the right is crisp, sharp, and shows every detail perfectly.
Look at the image, it was already explained to you which areas are clear in the NASA image and weren't present in the other. You even highlighted the areas mentioned yourself in the NASA image. This post explains which areas to look at >>15556324 >The image on the right shows a "square" like shape highlighted at the top, but the image on the left doesn't show this. >There's also two kind of "T" shapes on the image on the right (lowest and furthest right highlighted objects) which are also missing from the image on the left.
>more then one person has testified to the fact that NASA edits such things out of their images 
>>15561070 You still aren't proving your claim, while I'm further showing that you are incorrect by posting images that show characteristics more in keeping with the image to the left. To the point where you are attempting to reverse the characteristics between high-resolution and low-resolution images. The high-lighting that I did do in the right-hand image was to point out that despite the poor-resolution, there are anomalies still evident. Interestingly, you confirm their presence in an effort to bolster your argument that that is the higher resolution image. Finally, if your claim were true, you wouldn't need to argue the point to this extent. You could point out visually that you are correct and let other readers observe what is evident for themselves but you don't, you just keep insisting that you are right with no substance to show it. Citation to NASA's obscuration of structures in their images was given in the two youtube links I provided. Here is more testimony that I'm sure you'll attempt to dismiss in some manner.
>>15561445 How can you continually assert that the image on the right is low resolution? are you really this stupid?
And your two youtube videos are worth shit. You claimed more than one person testified to the fact that NASA edits their images, but if your own testimony is "someone on youtube said so!" then you don't have a leg to stand on.
Just because a bunch of people make a claim it doesn't mean it's true.
I assumed when you said people had testified that it was people who actually worked for NASA.
But this argument is pointless, seeing as you can't tell the difference between a blatantly sharp and clear high resolution image and a blurry low resolution one.
Not to mention the fact that you claim there are anomalies in the NASA image, while also claiming they are edited out. If you admit there are anomalies in the NASA image, then you must also admit that the independent image has also been edited to remove those anomalies, otherwise the higher resolution (as you claim) image with the much finer detail would show these same anomalies as the lower resolution image.
>>15554636 I dont really see how you can compare the two photos, the orientation of the moon relative to the sun is clearly very different. Shadows are only being cast in one photo, of course it's going to obscure certain features.
>>15561563 Not my testimony but testimony from at least three people who saw NASA "Strippers" painting things out. Claiming it invalid because video recordings of their statements describing this were uploaded to youtube is an attack the source fallacy. It's also a cherry pick that continues to disregard what is revealed when NASA's images are enhanced: >>15560953 As well as the consistency of this and the unedited images that NASA has let slip through that consistently show the same features. Which shows how many legs you have to stand on. Especially when you have to basically claim that light is dark. What's next? Are you going to claim that these structures cannot exist because NASA would have flawlessly eliminate all of evidence of them in their images and allowed no leaks to occur? For denial to go that deep, it can only be pathological.
>>15561610 Yes, people working independently with their own equipment are able to get more honest images of the Moon then those officially shared with us by NASA. Because NASA has been caught obscuring their own images, something not only attested too but proven when you actually look at enough of their images.
>>15561655 >Yes, people working independently with their own equipment are able to get more honest images of the Moon then those officially shared with us by NASA So now you are just completely ignoring the fact that you were hilariously wrong about the image on the left being higher resolution?
You are so delusional you can't even admit to being wrong when the evidence that you are wrong is posted.
>>15561668 No proof has been offered that this Cherry-pick is correct and the empty argument that it isn't has relied on citing the resolution given for the image by NASA: While dismissing the fact that NASA has been caught obscuring their own images. Now, It's back to assertions of delusion on my part: >>15560734 Another thing I find amusing is that I'm the one posting the majority of images of the Moon in this thread because I know what is there and have confidence in it. How many images of the Moon do those relying on logical-fallacies and false assertions that It's all Autismfoilism on my part use to support their claims? None . . . Which only further demonstrates that the visual data doesn't support the claim that there is no evidence of the presence of Our Cosmic Ancestors on the Moon. No doubt they would like to counter this point by asserting that if they do produce images that show nothing of interest on the Moon that I'll just write them off as being edited by NASA. However, being that I've already shared testimony to that effect and shared images showing this in other threads. -Here's a relevant link: http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-directories/6-tampering/tampering-directory.htm- It would be a fair point. Check mate Lunacheesers.
>>15561749 >No proof has been offered You mean besides the multiple sources stating the resolution of the image? Despite the fact that we can download the image and see the full resolution ourselves?
You can't fake that kind of resolution.
It's funny how you can claim that the image isn't high resolution because "no proof" despite the fact you haven't provided a single piece of evidence against it, or any evidence that your image is high resolution.
You just can't accept that you were wrong about the image not being high resolution when it clearly and demonstrably is.
What I am about to tell you is a highly guarded secret known only to a select few. Hollow Earth theory is incorrect only because those that have witnessed Hollow Earth were actually witnessing Hollow Moon. Better known as Project Lunar Bubble.
>>15562012 >pathalogical denial Says the one who is so fucking retarded he thinks that a 15mp image is higher resolution than a 576mp one.
It's not cherry-picking when our whole argument was based on the resolution of the two images, which you were absolutely wrong about, and now you are going into full denial mode trying to switch the discussion to something else, rather than admit that you were wrong.
>>15554636 >The image on the left was taken by an independent astronomer, while the image on the right is courtesy of NASA. Why do you suppose that some of NASA's images show clear indications that they have been obscured in some way?
What makes you think the images were processed in the same way? How visible features are depends on the contrast and exposure of the image. Amateur astronomers regularly crank these up to get out the nice surface detail whist trying to not saturate the craters.
It may be evidence of "tampering" but there is no reason to suggest it is NASA.
To prove the point: >>15555367 Shows far more colour than any other image you posed. Is NASA photoshoping out colour? No. That person has turned the saturation up amongst other things.
>>15560768 Film is non-linear. It will produce different results to other images and even other film exposures. One of the problems with photographic plates was this. Again the contrast has been enhanced.
>>15560768 I see it now, holy shit, like how could there be structural remains inside a crater? if it was truely a crater it would be smooth with aclittle mound in the center. i see hhow nasa tried to hide it. woooow. you've shown me something cool, thank you :)
>>15562021 Mooncheeser, are you really so retarded as to not understand that the resolution given by NASA for their images means nothing when they've been caught obscuring their images? It may well be 576mp but that doesn't matter if they blur out what they don't want us to see after the fact.
>>15562098 I've already linked testimony to the fact that NASA does and an archive of tampering evidence in their own images. I'm glad that you bought up the topic of color too, that's another thing that they cheese out.
>>15562316 Hi, Moon2™. nice to see you back at it. How much are your Disinfo Masters paying you this week? Is it the usual allotment of Mars bars, Twix, and a case of Mountain Dew?
Unfortunately, you're really falling down on the job though.Your premise was much too transparently false this time around. I mean, the pic on the left is higher res than the pic on the right? Whew. That's a weak sauce canard even for you, my sweet friend. Then, you cite the youtuber core777 as a source? The guy who believes that "they" are projecting a gigantic hologram on the moon to hide "what's really going on." That's really pathetic, Moon2™.
A few days ago, Xeno recommended that you be banned. I was the person who argued against banning you. But, frankly, this thread is your worst effort and really reeks of desperation.
Your efforts to discredit those who truly believe and offer real evidence of intelligent activity on the Moon and throughout the solar system by presenting yourself and, by extension others, as autistic, quasi-schizophrenic, pareidolia challenged, lunatics who never leave their bedrooms, has never been flimsier. I would even say out right lazy. You've got to do better.
My suggestion: Take a break for awhile. Do some more "research". Clean your room. Organize your folders. Come back in a month or so with a fresh batch of blurry images with doodles on them and a renewed and more vigorously strident denial of reality. It will surely be a more effective way of convincing the casual lurker that all "seekers of truth" are lunatics.
Yes a crater independent of its environment should be a smoothish concave feature, but it is not independent of its environment.
Here is an explanation- >rock makes crater >crater chills for 10M years >another rock makes a crater >An extremely energetic inpact, much of the surrounding material gets blown the fuck out >chunk of moon lands in this first crater
"HOLY SHIT THAT CANT HAPPEN HOLY SHIT THAT MEANS ALIUMS OR COVERUP OR CONSPIRACY ABOUT LIFE ON THE MOON"
And I bet that is just how another cock-sucker like OP hooked OP into this fucking lunacy. There are things we do not understand, and there are thousands of explanations (no matter how slim the odds) for any one given event or situation. Do not be so quick to believe. Question everything, but know when youve been answered.
Alright, I'm going to lay down exactly what Mr. Schizo is saying. He thinks that because the Nasa picture has pixelation and looks around the edge, therefore it has lower resolution to him.
Problem is he's comparing a composite to a whole shot of the moon. The composite isn't meant for research purposes, only for giving people a nice look at the Moon. You can see the visible compositing lines on the moons surface, and the edges are infact pixelated due to the compositing process because they're mapping a flat surface to a curve. I've illustrated the reason here.
In summary, you're all fucking retards.
Moonshithead, you're the most retarded, go look at high res pictures outside of the composite, you can download them for free from NASA's actual bloody site. Stop using Google Earth or whatever the fuck.
>>15562549 There's the accusation that I'm a disinformation agent, I was wondering when it would show up. First of all, the argument regarding resolution was cherry-picked and NASA's action's invalidate it. Furthermore, regarding Crrow777's filming of the Lunar Wave, I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions but considering that these structures have holographic properties and Lunar Transient phenomenon -sightings of lights and glows on the Moon-: I don't think that he is entirely wrong either. Seems like you are trying to spook me into shutting up over implications that I'm at risk of being banned. Considering how long I've been at this and that I've actually mellowed in my responses. I doubt it. Finally, that that I'm the one being accused of attempting to discredit others via autismfoilism regarding the Moon is absurd and shows some serious effort to subvert logic. First of all, who else is advocating for this on /x/? It's very strange that your argument shoots itself in the foot by admitting that there is intelligent life on the Moon and elsewhere: Just not what I share . . . Even though no one else on /x/ is offering such material: On what grounds is this asserted? Because if I'm not being an autismfoilist as a result of a legit mental-disorder: Then I must be pretending to act that way in an effort to "harm the movement" as it were. The same slimy straw-man is being applied, just through a different assertion in this case. It's pretty well established that the accusation of mental-imbalance is just used to discredit and dismiss anyone who advocates for shunned knowledge: While simultaneously avoiding the implications and It's been around ever since people started asking question's about UFO's. Your accusation is bullshit. Nice try.
>>15562819 Whats fucked up is you've deluded yourself into thinking that you're excellent at argument and prose, because others stop arguing with you. You're so bloody irrational and stubborn that people simply write your stupid shit off.
The reason no one else on the board argues for the same shit as you, is because it's god damn nuts, and everyone else can tell its nuts. Same as the Paracas skulls, same as the parrots on Mars, the pyramid stuff, and all that other shit you spout out. Your sources are always pictures with some shapes, unreliable "scientists", and youtube videos.
>>15562830 And molecules are hexagons, ooo, spoopy. Reminds me of an aortic valve
>>15562819 we have an atmosphere you dumb fuck, you know, wind, water, ice, not to mention plants and animals. Hence the Apollo footprints remain when footprints here dont last. So, no, you will not find one here.
>>15562830 its circular asshole. the irregularities in the internal shape are probably from differences in the composition of the moons sub/surface. looks like a crater in sand on a rock floor, where some parts dip deeper than others.
>>15562819 Many of the craters in these photos that are not completely vacant (smooth walls- perfect) are simply many craters of different ages overlapping one another. There is a good example near the bottom of your pic. My first thought is not conspiracy, it's that the moon is blasted with craters
The Galileo images are not true colour. Both images are just representations of data, neither is more correct because they were taken with different filters to the colours your eyes see. One has clearly been made to approximate the colour in the moon we see.
This is not removing colour. This highlights the point that processing is everything.
>>15562316 You claimed the image on the right was lower resolution, you have been proven wrong.
It doesn't matter if they obscure things, the image is still higher resolution than the one you claimed.
If you are too stupid to see that, then you have problems.
And it's not cherry picking you fucking loon. The whole discussion between us has been about the resolution, and I have proven you wrong.
This just goes to show that no matter what evidence is presented proving you wrong you will just ignore it and focus on something else instead while claiming the person you were arguing with was just "cherry picking"
>>15563587 He already thinks there is a group of posters who specifically target him.
He often uses arguments against posters, based on posts directed at him from 5 months ago. >How can you say this when in the last thread you said that! STOP CHANGING TACTICS!
There was also the time he used two people giving two different explanations as proof that he was right. Apparently because they had different opinions on what could have caused something it meant that they were both wrong. He clearly thinks everyone is part of some organisation, and if they have differing opinions it means someone fucked up with the script.
>>15563594 Haven't noticed that yet. I've seen him linkback to other threads in the archive though. He's got an extremely distinctive posting style. He should just get it over with and take a trip so people can filter the sob.
>>15562887 As I keep pointing out, what's really interesting regarding this is that those who call the indications regarding such topics crazy are the ones actually manifesting what they accuse others of. Anytime a topic regarding Aliens, their involvement with Earth and concrete evidence for them gets bought up: Your ilk goes batshit in a frenzy of shit-posting histrionics and arguments based in logical-fallacies and cherry-picking. >>Hey x, isn't this interesting? >>No, nothing interesting here. Now GTFO you undesirable who must be shunned, seeing anyone bring up these topics clearly triggers me: >>Yet you are the crazy one and I am right because of my appeal to manufactured consensus you delusional crazy schizo schizophrenic.>> I'm going to continue shit-posting and pretend it proves it.>> Because I'm right and you are wrong because of my Straw-man and everyone knows it!
It's like a Human-centipede of shit-posting.
>>15563168 >>15563174 Even factoring in erosion, we should still be able to find at least one impact crater with a triangular interior -funny how you assert that I wasn't obviously referring to the interior shape of Ukert just so you can have a point to claim that I'm wrong on. Desperate much?- Yet as far as I know, Ukert is the only triangular formation in the solar-system that gets called a crater: With no explanation given as to how it could have formed that way via impact.
>>15563184 There are also structures not associated with circular formations: Still, multiple impacts occurring at exactly the same point and from objects so uniform in size that they built up the walls into towering formations and buttressing? I'm nearly dumbfounded by that one. Nope, no conspiracy and no evidence of intelligent life building circular structures in keeping with ancient cultures: Just impossibly precise impacts. I guess you'd like to claim that the Moon being hit with multiple asteroids with sniper-precision is more likely: Because >>Muh Straw-man!
>>15563205 Even where you high-lighted, we can see spires and towering structures at the walls of these "Craters". Plus structures in the middle of them. While if you look at the rest of the image, you can also see similar structures that are independent of any "Crater" formation.
>>15563380 Not only are you cherry-picking one point from that article: We've had the debate on the Moon's color before.One of the funny thing's about this is that it was pointed out that independent astronomers bring out color by upping saturation slightly. Given the effect of atmospheric interference on color and that all upping saturation does is heighten the prominence of colors that are there: Those colors are present on the Moon. It doesn't mean that the Moon is in grey-scale, as NASA would have us believe despite leaking images that show other-wise.
>>15563574 If I you take a high-resolution image and liberally apply the blur tool to it in photoshop: Is it still high-resolution? >>15563580 >>Implying that one point regarding resolution would disprove all the data even if it were true. >>Implying that that isn't exactly what Cherry-picking is an attempt to do. >>"Hurr! Stop calling me out on my logical fallacies Moon Moon!"
>>15563587 >>15563594 >>15563617 Remember /x/, disinformation isn't real and that anyone who considers it to be is delusional: Despite all evidence that it is. Just like with the evidence that there are others on the Moon, those who use straw-man arguments to claim that something is patently false are always correct: Because they follow the manufactured consensus and if you don't then you must be crazy. Which means you will never be loved and accepted by others.
moon moon loves to use his laminated copy of the "logical fallacy" cheat sheet. unfortunately, he has a very limited grasp on the meaning of the terms he bandies about. in fact, his posts are nothing more than long chains of logical fallacy and delusion strung together with adjectives.
if you point out that his basic premise is flawed, he calls that "straw man"
if you demonstrate that a specific point he has made is clearly wrong, that's called "cherry picking"
if you point out that more than one of his points or positions is wrong, he will call that "goal posting".
if you point out that the sources he cites are not trustworthy he will call that's a form of ad-hominem.
finally, if some unsuspecting noob takes the time to carefully and thoughtfully refute every claim moon moon has made, he will simply say "you're not engaging with the totality of the evidence." that's his ultimate goal post maneuver.
when someone puts forward a claim (there are artificial structures on the Moon), when challenged, that person must supply evidence for that claim. what moon moon does is insist that it's incumbent upon YOU to DISPROVE HIS claim. this is no different than a christian claiming that god created the universe or that jesus rose from the dead. it's effectively a supernatural claim that can't be disproven. this is an umbrella of logical fallacy under which most everything else moon moon says is covered.
moon moon is not wrong. he can't be PROVEN wrong because his diatribes are not based on facts than can be refuted; they're based on BELIEFS that are UNFALSIFIABLE.
He works on the belief that the photos he posts are indisputable proof for what he claims. He also insists that because other people believe the same as him then that must mean it is true. Which is argumentum ad populum.
>>15563983 You state that I'm throwing out new arguments, -even though I haven't ignored discussion regarding the cherry-picking of that image- While implying that everything else I've shared is invalid based on this because I've broken some arbitrary rule. When really, you just don't like it that I continue to prove my case through images and are seeking a means to invalidate this. Speaking of, why don't any of the Mooncheeser's post images of the Moon? If there is really nothing of note there, it would only help their case.
>>15564176 >>Mooncheeser used ad-hominem! >>It falls apart the moment anyone bothers to go over the thread.
Why do you try so hard to disprove this if it is patently false and absurd as is so fanatically insisted?
>>15564298 But you are throwing out new arguments while ignoring the fact you were blatantly wrong about the image being low resolution.
People have been arguing that with you, not any of the other images you posted. But the moment you were proven wrong you throw a hissy fit and say "WELL PROVE ALL THESE OTHER IMAGES WRONG THEN!!!" even though that wasn't the discussion at hand.
Just admit you were wrong about the resolution of the two images.
>>15564332 See: >>15564176 >moon moon is not wrong. he can't be PROVEN wrong because his diatribes are not based on facts that can be refuted; they're based on BELIEFS that are UNFALSIFIABLE.
Notice that his new attempt at misdirection is "WHY AM I THE ONLY ONE POSTING IMAGES OF THE MOON?"
Moon moon clearly isn't adept at the construction of logical argument.
But, after 7 years of posting this same shit on /x/, what moon moon fancies himself to be adapt at is 4chan style debating:
misdirection goading baiting green text "implying" ad-hominem circular reasoning unfalsifiable claim fallacy
He is not trying to convert you to his religion.
He is only interested in what he thinks constitutes "winning the argument". He does this in order to bolster his fractured and delusional ego. of course, he has never won an argument based on fact, logic, or reason.
However, he considers himself to have successfully defeated an opponent if he is able to goad and bait the individual into attempting to refute or debunk one of his unfalsifiable claims. Once you've crossed that line you too have made an error in logic and have now been sucked into the vortex.
>>15564332 Trying to hard to force the point and to what end? My point has been that even if NASA listed the image as hi-res, we can see that it isn't and the fact that NASA has been caught obscuring their images further damns it: >>15560953 >>15561445 It's apparent that the Mooncheesers are just clinging to this point in an effort to attack my credibility. Which only goes to show how much they actually have to work with on that front.
>>15564437 All I'm doing is illuminating the dishonesty and obfuscation inherent to the Mooncheeseshills: While joking around with the same kind of mockery that such posters revel in leveling at those of us who advocate for the veracity of fringe topics. All the Mooncheesers can do in response is continue with their attempts to discredit me through ad-hominem, as they already admitted that they would right to my face: >>15562316 By all means, show everyone in this thread where my conclusions have been conclusively debunked using logic and reasoning to dismantle the claims I've made with supporting evidence and testimony. This thread has gone on for 117 posts and all anyone needs to do is read the thread to see that I'm presenting a solid argument. So solid in fact, that those decrying it won't even directly argue with what I present but are effectively forced to rely upon a logical-fallacy loop: To the point where even my calling them on it is declared as a negative reflection upon my character and credibility.
>>15564464 It's high res in the sense it's made from a shitload of high res pictures; but you're right that it has been distorted near the edges because It Is A Composite Picture, It Is Not A Research Picture and was made for general public viewing out of research pictures. Every feature shown on that picture is on the moon. I detailed it here: >>15562693
>>15564508 Thats the fucking problem, we do not see your fuckin towers, castles, craters, etc. You post them like they're absolute proof but we fucking can't see anything that looks artificial in them. Call us brainwashed or shills or whatever the fuck makes you happy, but your evidence does not constitute evidence to us. It doesn't look artificial.
>>15564508 >their attempts to discredit me through ad-hominem, as they already admitted that they would right to my face That guy was clearly trolling you... Why would you fall for something so obvious?
>>15564578 Wow, you went through and quoted a bunch of my posts just to state that you see nothing. Which does nothing to prove that there is nothing there. Much ado about nothing much? I explained what to look for here: >>15558848, I guess you've never understood that just because you don't see something, doesn't mean it isn't there? Furthermore, as I already pointed out here: >>15564298 those shit-posting denial go out of their way to avoid posting images of the Moon. A point that has been ignored.
>>15564621 Do you think you are ever going to get to enjoy that Cherry? Here, I know you'll ignore it but I'll post it for those genuinely interested. http://marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2010/180/clementine-changes.htm
>>15564624 Trolling or no, It's exactly what is going on and I'm not the only one subject to this campaign.
>>15564630 Thats the fucking problem. You're the one making the outrageous claims. If none of us see anything in your "evidence", then what the fuck do you expect us to say?
It's as this guy states >>15564176 you're asking us to disprove your claim, which we obviously can't do when you simply brush off any evidence to the contrary as us not seeing it, or accusing pictures of being doctored / low res.
I've considered the mainstream might be wrong, thats why I'm even bothering coming here. It's just your evidence is shit, but you treat it as an absolute.
Have you ever even considered the possibility you're wrong? Not a single other person in this thread sees those craters as artificial structures. You've come up with a rationalization for why the structures are cloaked, but again that just sounds like it's an excuse for why nothing appears to be there.
So I don't think that OP understands that when a crater is naturally formed, there will be a raised lip.... In other words the crater would go out and create a lip, as well as create a concave crater.
The thing is, this is all NATURAL- if there are any "walls" on the moon its because they were formed by natural phenomenon, not aliums or the guverman. And no, I have yet to see anything that even remotely suggests intelligent activity.
We cannot see what you see, OP. Thats why those anons told you to take your pills... because our only explanation for why this one person (you, OP) out of ALL of us sees these "towers" or "spires" is that you are hallucinating. Its our only logical solution.
This would be a very different situation if you showed us a proper up-close pic that we believed to be from a reliable source and not a youtuber.
>>15554534 Just here to add my voice to the weight of people reminding everyone that the guy making all these claims about definitely seeing artificial structures, about NASA altering photos to cover it up, and about how anyone and everyone who points out there's nothing of substance to his claims is a "shitposting denialist shill troll blah blah blah," is completely insane and absolutely no amount of reasoning, evidence, data, etc. is going to alter his mindset or behavior at all. Even were he a troll, the sheer length and pointlessness of the project would confirm, not contradict, the insane conclusion.
So those taking the time to point out he's nuts, and wrong? You're far from alone in your conclusions.
>>15564648 Ok, no! God no! PLEASE tell me you have more than your link to that website...... OP, those are blurs. they are not structures. And that is also a composite image, and while we are here I can also throw out an old moonfucker trick....
The "evidence" (pictures on your link) are doctored and the towers were added after the fact.
But I do not believe that. I think that its a fuckup like when google tries to string their thousands and thousands of HI-RES images together, making a composite image. I think their software attempted to connect some dots that arent really connected irl.
>>15564648 You can post all the images you want showing how NASA has edited their images, but that doesn't change the fact that the image on the right was high resolution while the one on the left wasn't
You've also made the claim that NASA used the blur filter on their moon image, and if so I am sure you can find an area on the image here http://gigapan.com/gigapans/72052 where there is obvious blurring done to the image to hide something.
Go ahead, if you think you are right you should easily be able to find an area with obvious signs of being edited.
>>15564653 So, what you are actually saying is that the fact that you can't prove me wrong: proves me wrong! Lulz! As I've pointed out three times now, Mooncheesers go out of their way to avoid posting any images of the Moon: Why wouldn't they unless the data doesn't support their assertions? Yet they make an excuse by claiming that It's because I'll point out if it's false. Which is true but not for the reasons they claim, the side-by-side comparison that they've been trying to cherry-pick through the entire thread was originally posted in another thread by a source claiming that it demonstrates that the image showing structures was false: http://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/15157088/#15166812 Stating that images of the Moon from NASA that show no structures have been edited to obscure them by NASA: Is attested to by multiple sources and can be seen in their own images. It's not a fallacy on my part but the truth. The fact that Mooncheesers avoid posting images of the Moon to bolster their claims: Then attempt to turn it into an attack on my credibility shows much in light of this. Now we just see more ad-hominem and appeals to consensus from them. All form and no substance as usual.
>>15564696 When I haven't actually been proven wrong? When do you meet the burden of proof for your claim that there is nothing on the Moon?
>>15564707 How exciting and original, I already linked someone else showing this: >>15564648 Predictably, it was dismissed with an attack the source fallacy. I've posted images showing it in other threads too. If it isn't dismissed as a camera glitch, it will be asserted that NASA couldn't have obscured it because they are infallible and would have done a flawless job of hiding this information with no leaks. According to Mooncheesers, the clear evidence of obscuration cannot be exactly that based on the false-premise of NASA's infallibility: Yet I'm the one accused of using asspull-logic . . . We've come full-circle: >>15560734
Over a dozen fucking military officers are on record over the past 10 years CONFIRMING that our government is in active contact with multiple alien entities.
There are YOUTUBE VIDEOS showing interviews with former Air Force and intelligence-community members past and present acknowledging a coverup of alien activity on the moon.
MULTIPLE astronauts are on record confirming alien contact.
And the sad thing is ALMOST ALL OF THIS INFORMATION IS READILY AVAILABLE FROM LEGITIMATE SOURCES WITH THE RIGHT GOOGLE SEARCH.
When you idiots come in here with your "where's your source?" bullshit, I know that you are idiots. Nobody worth a damn would sit there waiting for an anonymous internet poster FOR HOURS when they could simply do the google search themselves and find better evidence.
And no, I won't post any of it, because you're a lazy, close-minded idiot who is too brainwashed to ever understand HOW to do your own research.
>>15564936 No. You won't post any links to all this "proof" CONFIRMING ANYTHING because it's all bullshit. Stephen Greer and Steven Bassett's vanity project disclosure circus or Richard Hoagland and UFOTV videos.
The "lazy, close-minded idiot" is actually the one who is "brainwashed" into believing ANY of this ancient alien on the moon face on mars cydonia nibiru planet x BULLSHIT.
>>15564936 There are, indeed, a few (not over a dozen) military officers in the past year on record claiming that various governments are in contact with alien entities.
That doesn't make one of those rocks look like an artificial artifact. That's one of the big problems with this guy is he just throws random bullshit around like that.
As for this whole "why do you wait for me instead of doing your own research" bullshit, people do. They even post it here. This guy, as he always does, is just flat out lying about everything that's going on around him.
Everyone has researched this crap. Those rocks aren't alien artifacts and no amount of military officers not even talking about those rocks is going to change that. The whole rant is just another example of what a dishonest, insane asshole this person is and why he should go and fuck himself and why I contend that it's time to start purging this crap from /x/. He's no different than Hanz, just an insane moron reposting the same meaningless gibberish over and over, trashing thread after thread. At least this thread was probably his to trash, but Hanz started his own trash threads, too.
>>15565445 I have no idea what mystery that even is, or why I'd be trying to solve it, but that gives me a really great idea for a sort of part kafka-esque, part Borges post-modern story of a detective set to solve a mystery he isn't even aware he's trying to solve.
>>15564803 >When I haven't actually been proven wrong? When you claimed the 15mp soft image on the left was higher resolution than the 576mp clear and very sharp image on the right.
You've done a bunch of mental gymnastics to get out of admitting you were wrong. You even claimed that the image was clearly low resolution because NASA had applied blurring filters to it. Yet when asked to point out even a single area in that image you refused. Your link showing it was not analyzing the same image, therefore it doesn't count, because you'r claim was that THAT image had been blurred by NASA.
>the clear evidence of obscuration So go ahead, find me one example of obfuscation in that NASA image I linked. If you are so certain that it is low resolution and has had the blur filter "liberally applied" as you put it.
>>15564840 Your claim that I offer weak proof and that there are no structures on the Moon needs to be met before it can be vetted as true. So why would Mooncheesers go out of their way to avoid posting data that proves it -Independent images of the Moon that definitely show no such structures- Instead of endlessly shit-posting with the frenzied intent to tulpa-mance me into their "R.H. Moon Moontm, the Delusional dingus who cries shill" straw-man?
>>15564936 >>15564943 This is why I do what I do: With the intent of breaking the enforced denial down so that a critical-mass will be reached and the Human collective will finally do something about this information. Fear and conditioning instilled in the average person by those with a vested interests hold this back, I find myself wondering which side the Mooncheesers in this thread fall upon. How much do they know and what is their motivation to deny it?
>>15565354 Hey Vendor, remember in a previous thread that I told you that you should be careful what pejoratives you invoke? Being a trip-fag, I went ahead and looked up your posts. I don't intend to judge the Church of the Subgenius, however, if you're going to assert that people are insane by proxy for discussing this. I find it note-worthy that your posts on COTS are very bizarre and cult-like: http://archive.4plebs.org/x/search/text/Church%20of%20the%20Subgenius/
>>15565374 So, I take it you're the same one who posted this: >>15562549? Your reliance on insidious subversion of logic and dialogue speaks for itself: >>Advocating for this makes you disinfo because It's so crazy and everyone knows how crazy it is and I know crazy! >>Muh buzz-words prove it! >>Herp-derp florp flimsy evidence! >>Hurble. Hoagland strawman!
The grotesque level of tu-quoque in an effort to discredit my reputation is impressive really.
>>15566586 Why does the Cherry-picking never end? Because of greedy desperation to create an illegitimate impression.
>>15567941 >When was I wrong >HURRR I WASNT WRONG CHERRY PICKING HERP DERP! See, once again you fail to acknowledge you were blatantly wrong.
You claim there is clear evidence, and that NASA liberally applied a blurring filter to THAT image specifically. And yet, when I look I find no blurring, and when I ask you to point out one area in which it is has been blurred you refuse.
Are you so afraid that the evidence backing your claim up isn't there? Because if it is so obvious and easy to find you should be able to do it in a few seconds from that link to show the obvious and liberal application of the blur tool.
>>15555066 >With the current capabilities of digital cameras, you don't actually need to have a telescope to get some remarkable details.
You will need a telescope with that digital camera to magnify surface features sufficiently to be imaged within the camera's resolution (in other words, the details must be magnified larger than the size of the pixels). Unless the camera in question has a very long focal length (telephoto) option. And if that is the case, a rock-solid tripod is virtually required to avoid camera shake even at short exposures. This from personal experience, don't you know.
>>15554636 Sir, I assume you know that full moon lighting (on the left), will make certain features visible that would not be seen in images with oblique lighting, and vice versa. However I would also point out that in said photos we do not know the details concerning color filtering in these images. As someone who has done visual telescopic observation of the moon for a number of years, I can testify that the use of color filters (particularly orange and light blue) will make previously unseen features, as in the maria regions, stand out to such an extent that it may seem anomalous at first glance. The combination of lighting and optical filters will produce startingly different results, and therefore we cannot automatically come to the conclusion that NASA has been up to some shenanigans.
>>15554636 Been looking at the photos. All I can say from comparing the 2 pictures is it definitely looks different. Why and how? Not much of a clue but I think it has something to do with the suns lighting affects? Maybe that's why they look different?
>>15568002 My eyes must be fucked up because I can't see anything that's blurred. The NASA images are way better and clearer maybe because they have a better camera. But by comparing the pictures, the craters are in the same spot I don't see anything that's deleted or obscured except for the high and low contrast.
>>15567954 Sorry if you're keeping your fingers crossed that people won't read the whole thread and find the posts I've already made addressing this and proving my case: >>15560953>>15561445>>15564648 >>15561749 It's cute how you get so butthurt over trying to shift burden of proof on your cherry-pick: I present testimony and evidence that NASA resorts to obscuring images of the Moon in order to hide structures. It's up to those making the claim that there are no structures on the Moon and that NASA does not obscure their images too prove their claims: What happens instead? They spend the entire thread posting the equivalent of: >>"No It's not! I'm right! You just won't admit that you're wrong! Moon Moon! Moon Moon! You're just a big smelly stupid foil-head!" Even if I were to let them have that cherry, it still doesn't prove that there is nothing but craters and rocks on the Moon: Nor does it explain the point that they refuse to address that none of those shit-posting fallacies and herping their derps to attack my credibility: will not post any images of the Moon. This is the forth time I've pointed this out: >>15564803 >>15564630
>>15567955 So, if It's not due digital processing as claimed here: >>15564621 It's due to lighting . . . Even though I also linked images in film from Lick observatory that also show remarkable details of the Moon. >>15560840
>>15568194 None of those points prove your case. Not a single thing has been posted by you showing how that image has been blurred by NASA.
> will not post any images of the Moon. I posted a link to a high resolution of the moon, that shows 0 evidence of being tampered with. You claimed it had been blurred using photoshop, but have refused to show even one area in that image where it has been edited.
Why won't you address that image? You were the one who initially posted part of it, so you clearly thought it was significant. You also claimed it had had the blur tool "liberally applied" and yet anyone who actually looks will see that there is not one area that has been blurred using photoshop.
>>15564176 >moon moon loves to use his laminated copy of the "logical fallacy" cheat sheet. unfortunately, he has a very limited grasp on the meaning of the terms he bandies about. in fact, his posts are nothing more than long chains of logical fallacy and delusion strung together with adjectives.
>>15568194 if you really want to persuade others that your points are correct, rather than saddling the casual reader with wading through the 12,000 + words of text you have written here, please summarize the points you have made in this thread in easy-to-read bullet point form. thanks.
>>15568249 You're still shifting the burden of proof for your claim that the imaging hasn't been obscured and going a step further by disregarding the testimony and evidence that I have provided that NASA has obscured their imaging: While demanding that I show that it was obscured based on your precise demands: Goal-posting in addition to attempting to shift the burden of proof. Thanks for helping to prove my case Mooncheeser.
>>15568385 Thanks for illuminating the unoriginality of Mooncheesers. I've already noted how telling it is that they attempt to cast pointing out logical-fallacies as detrimental to my position. Funny how they still won't post any independent images of the Moon either, at least they are consistent in the level of content they provide.
>>15568457 Oh, look a sock-puppet attempt at consensus cracking by posting a single "This." What a revelation and such amazing and well-though out posting.
>>15568579 not a sock puppet, anon. I agree with what the above poster said, that's why I seconded his request: support you claim so the conversation can be advanced. Oh, look- I'm doing it again: >>15568501 This.
For clarity, please summarize the valid points you've made in this thread.
>>15568660 Thanks for demonstrating which one of is really suffering from mental-disturbances, as I explained way back here: >>15560734
>>15568662 You're going to demand that I summarize a 183 post thread on a forum with a format built for ease of finding posts? Let me guess, if I don't, you intend to imply that it somehow invalidates my position, right? Another form of Goal-posting. Fine, here are a couple of relevant posts: >>15558848 >>15560840 >>15562316 Isn't it more tiring to be completely and utterly reliant upon logical-fallacies and more damaging to their position then it is for me to keep having to point them out?
>>15568579 Man you're still not getting it. We don't give a shit if you linked other "obscured" images (looked more like artifacts that happen when images are badly mapped to a sphere) we're talking purely about this image.
Find the blurred areas moony http://gigapan.com/gigapans/72052
>>15563968 >Those colors are present on the Moon. It doesn't mean that the Moon is in grey-scale, as NASA would have us believe despite leaking images that show other-wise. So your point is than pictures with oversaturated colour show NASA is removing colour? That doesn't make any sense.
>>15568789 Thanks, these threads do end up serving more of a purpose then just further illuminating denied and suppressed truth's. It makes for an instructive lesson in what is objective logic and how those who short-change it attempt to subvert it to mean It's opposite.
>>15568790 How does it feel to lose an argument with someone you call a retard? I'm going to note that I've actually been around people afflicted with Down's syndrome and other disabilities and they don't deserve to have stereotypes like this perpetuated. Still, this is 4chan, so here's a poem for you:
>>I like balloons, >>Almost as much as I like the Moon. >>Cheese makes me laugh, >>because it comes from Cows >>and they go Moo. >>you make me laugh. >>I like you too, >>will you be my friend?
>>15568857 No, I do get it, you're ignoring my point regarding your use of shifting the burden of proof and goal-posting: Just so you can try and get something to stick. You and those in on this farce still won't post any independent images of the Moon either.
>>15569039 moon moon does this in every thread in which he is a participant: he makes outrageous claims and provides no evidence or proof to support his claims. then, he waits for another poster to make any sort of declarative statement, "there's nothing there. it's just craters." to shift the burden of proof from his original claims to a new supposed "counter-claim": "oh, yeah? If you think there are no glass towers on the moon then prove it!" it's just a classic junior high school debate club misdirection technique.
.moon moon has no proof to support his claims.
.he will never engage beyond the superficial with directly legitimate, logical questions. He will only address questions obliquely, buried in a block of word salad, the intent of which is to further obfuscate.
.you will notice he slips up often and makes direct reference to COINTELPRO forum spying techniques:
he knows all the techniques well because he uses them himself at every available opportunity. I don't believe moon moon is a "forum spy". He is just a delusional paranoid. People who suffer from paranoia are known to exhibit the behaviors and actions they accuse others of perpetrating against them. it's a slippery slope. I once confronted moon moon about his use of COINTELPRO techniques. His reply?
>>15569006 >>You are so mad >>and that makes me sad. >>Why don't you like me? >>I didn't mean to ruin your cheese. >>We could be friends >>like two frogs on lily-pad.
>>15569039 >>15569647 All someone has to do is read the thread to see how your posts rely on perpetual denial and subversion. How can you expect to convince anyone that your position is correct? Being this desperate to deny something can only be pathological. What do you hope to accomplish? Do you really believe that if you insist hard enough that I am insane, that it will become true or that you can convince me of it? It's actually much like >>15569647 states here: >>People who suffer from paranoia are known to exhibit the behaviors and actions they accuse others of perpetrating against them.
Only a person suffering from severe antisocial complexes would try this hard and be so vindictive in their attempts to convince a person and their peers that they are crazy in the face of all logic and behavior to the contrary. Denial of a legitimate mental-condition can only be sustained by projecting it onto an outward target deemed acceptable by an unhealthy, polarized world-view. Considering how those who decry the reality of suppressed information do so with the use of assertions of mental-illness Ad nauseam: It reveals that they have bought into the socially-sanctioned practice of excoriating segments of the population who advocate for and attempt to expose the veracity of officially denied and repressed topics: While attempting to cover-up and counter such a deduction by preempting such accusations. They are the ones projecting their own psychosis, It's made evident by the pathology of their posts. We should pity them for being taken advantage of by a system that uses them to repress the rest of humanity and rewards them for expressing sociopathic tendencies. Yet amazingly, they serve to illuminate all of this and bring it to our collective awareness for discernment and so, they have my thanks.
>>15570356 >>15570360 What you project the most onto others is an externalization of your own mental-state. Naturally, you can't abide having it pointed out that having a manifesto of fallacious assertions regarding the mental-stability of anyone who posits an aspect of reality that clashes with yours. Or threatens your adherence to what you consider to be common consensus: Is insular, paranoid and shows a persecution complex combined with a need to find a target to level these assertions at in order to assuage your own self-doubt. I know you'll try to claim that I'm the one doing that but all I'm doing is defending myself against already-established preconceived notions on your part: By pointing out that you do in fact suffer from such complexes. Those of us demanding that fringe-topics be given a fair hearing are subjected to these feats of projection on a routine basis. It needs to stop or else we will never be able to acknowledge new discoveries and assimilate knowledge so that we can move forward as a species. Your pathological need to dismiss anyone who does so as kooks is holding us all back.
Damn post didn't go through >>15570373 This is Crater Kopff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopff_%28crater%29
Can't find a side picture, but found a side video. When it highlights Maunder, Kopff is the one at the far right. http://wms.selene.darts.isas.jaxa.jp/selene_viewer/en/observation_mission/hdtv/007/orientale_basin_e.html
>>15570418 This is Reiner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiner_%28crater%29
>>15570431 This is Ukert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukert_%28crater%29
>>15570318 >>15570474 Damn, can't find this crater. I DID find out the source though: geb - ebay - in/g/ImportHubViewItem?itemid=251539983646&3D-Blu-Ray-CELESTIAL-PROOF-OF-INCREDIBLE-STRUCTURES-ON-OUR-MOON-NEW Your choice to believe if it's reliable or not, replace the - with a .
>>15570479 Aw you should've separated the individual posts out into paragraphs.
>>15570207 This is a major region of mare; it's upsidedown though. You can see it in this picture >>15554636
>>15570117 >Chromatic Aberration: The Picture Appears to come from this Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Nxc5AhkAk Bryson doesn't appear to be into the UFO craze, it would disappoint me if he was, as his A Short History Of Nearly Everything book was a very readable intro into general scientific topics.
>>15570446 When faced with this, all you can do is fall back on the same knee-jerk insinuations of mental-illness. If we were having this dialogue in Galileo's time, you'd be calling me a heretic. That might seem cliche but It's true when you consider the motivations at work and compare how the charge of mental-illness is applied with that of heresy: The Church at that time used accusations of heresy to attack the credibility of anyone who challenged their dominant paradigm: Which gave them license to dismiss anyone who presented something that did so outright. How is this any different from the manner in which you and the establishment use assertions of mental-illness?
>>15570479 You can't just send her a link to the thread so she can get a broader context? Gee, I wonder why you wouldn't do that. I might have to look up someone with credentials on my own just so we can get an unbiased perspective. Still It's interesting to see someone getting this invested in attempting to continue to force the consensus that I must be crazy. >>15562316 You're doing exactly what you said you would in the attached image and you'd never need to go this far over nothing.
>>15570537 oh, i did send her a link to this thread and many other archived threads as well. don't worry. i supplied her with lots of data. i want her to "engage with the totality of the evidence" as you are so fond of saying.
now you're comparing yourself to Galileo? not surprising that you would also have delusions of grandeur. by the age of 20 Galileo ha already invented the thermometer, what have you done besides suck richard hoagland's dick? no need to answer. just think about it.
As for the rest: I've already repeatedly established from various sources that not all of NASA's Lunar images can be trusted to show everything: Which are of course the ones you cherry-pick from. Furthermore, the appearance of the Moon and It's structures and features is of course going to change due to various factors. Not just the vagaries of atmospheric conditions when imaged from Earth but due to the fact I've already pointed out that these structures have holographic properties. Either way, you can't disprove them all, especially not the images and film taken by various independent astronomers that show the same consistent structures. Yet you waited a while for further posts and for the dialogue to change before pulling all this out. Willful deception and pathological behavior go hand in hand.
>>15570604 Yeah and I'm sure we can trust whatever you give back to us to be in no way biased, Right? I mean, It's not like you're biased, right? Especially not with comments like that. My comparison was between the use of accusations of heresy in Galileo's time and mental-illness today. I'm not surprised that you'd twist it to fit your pathologically warped complex though. You are the one who needs help and the level of seething contempt in your post makes it sadly apparent. You're the one who obviously doesn't feel good about themselves and considering what you are a party too: >>15570438 It's no wonder.
>>15570645 The Bill Bryson I sourced images from is an independent astronomer, odd that you would confuse the two. Science is great when It's applied without bias, however, vested-interests and the ego's of those who dismiss possibilities out of hand have co-opted the academic institutions that should support free-inquiry. This is part of the reason why we can't have nice things: http://pesn.com/2011/12/27/9601994_History_of_MITs_Blatant_Suppression_of_Cold_Fusion/ Stanton T. Friedman's book Science was Wrong has more examples like this. I'd consider picking up that one for your niece and nephew to show them the importance of questioning authority. On that note, it occurred to me that this whole set-up with bringing in your anonymous PHD ex-girlfriend is suspect in other ways: That being, instead of just looking up sources that give definitions and diagnostic criteria for Mental-illness to try and prove your histrionic claims: You take a more round-about and convoluted approach of waving it around how you've copied down all my posts. While stating that you are contacting an ex to ask them to psychoanalyze someone online who she's never met face-to-face. You would have us believe that your ex is someone with a PHD and wouldn't consider it at all unprofessional, or consider this an imposition of their time on your part? >>Hey, I know we're not on the best of terms but I really want to punk someone online as being mentally ill. Here's some documentation. >>Okay, sure honey, I'll take time out of my busy schedule to weigh in on your internet fight and support your pathological need to call those online mentally-ill. >>That couldn't possible have anything to do with why you are my ex. >>Nor in anyway a bizarre imposition that would breach my ethics as a mental-health professional!
>>15570674 It's high-lighting various super-structures and complexes on the Lunar surface from NASA's own images. Yet it also serves to highlight perpetual denial and cognitive dissonance.
>>15571338 Anyone who actually reads back from that point is going to see that you are wrong and you are the one who won't admit it. Even sock-puppets won't change that, all it takes is for an honest person to read the thread and your assertions fall-apart. Yet you never stop trying to invent some means to cast doubt upon the material shared: No matter how shoddy and readily disproved by going over the thread. As I keep pointing out, that's definite pathological lying and obfuscation.
>>15571431 So now you're going with an insinuation that I must be a pathetic try-hard jobless basement dweller out of this obsessive need to try and drop a steam-roller straw-man on my credibility: While basically screaming: >>"ZA Warudo! >>MoonMoonMoonMoonMoonMoonMoonMoon! >>Toki Wo Tomare!"
Even if I were a neet, it wouldn't change the fact that this information is important on multiple levels. For the fact that it shows just how deeply The Powers that be by Falsehood have lied to us. As well as for what it reveals regarding our place in the cosmos, our heritage and potential. We are all part of a re-birth of awareness that is an innate expression of the nature of our consciousness. This is an expression of It's growth and shows that we are a collective living force. It's strange that you would chose to reject our own increased knowledge and empowerment but all things serve the outward growth and expansion thereof.
>>15571572 I pity you and your wretched, fanatical need to fight a losing battle against the bringing to light of denied truth all the more if job-status really matters to you more then this. At least you show us the choice we face: Cling to the dominant paradigm based on status and trying to bring others down so they can be trampled on in order too temporarily secure illusions of perfidious social-status and satisfy self-righteousness: Or be liberated by the realization that there is so much more beyond that.
You have yet to post any information or any proof for your ramblings. Even your earliest claims of 'NASA censored this image' was completely unproven and completely negated by the fact that your independent image was less detailed than the NASA image.
You, my friend, are a delusional ignoramus. However, if you do want to post some 'proof' for anything you wish to claim, then I will gladly disprove it.
When someone presents information in alignment with maligned truths that you jump on the manufactured fallacious consensus in order to satisfy your toxic ego regarding them: You can't prove them wrong. So that's why you resort to spamming shit-posts, emitting effluvia from your own syphilitic psyche and insisting that the symptoms are manifest in the person you deride for daring to challenge the constructs you cling to in order too fortify your wavering sense of self as you writhe in barely-contained paroxysms of existential angst and petulant perturbedness. You need to seek peace. Prove me wrong, oh wait, you can't.
>>15571708 >Anyone who actually reads back from that point is going to see that you are wrong and you are the one who won't admit it.
anon, you have made a valiant attempt at reasoning with moon moon. but, i think now you'll have to concede that there is no point in continuing.
all of the moon moon threads have a similar trajectory and usually there is at least one poster such as yourself who attempts to reason with him. but, as you've seen, there is no reasoning with moon moon.
he is exactly like a born-again fundamentalist evangelical christian: he KNOWS he is right and nothing will change that. if he finds himself cornered by logic, he simply denies and accuses.
if, as it happened recently, he is confronted with unassailable and total defeat of his beloved fantasies, he will claim that it is a coordinated conspiracy to silence him. in this regard he actually started a thread a couple of weeks ago the premise of which was that the people who had destroyed his arguments in a previous thread were "too smart" to be on 4chan /x/ so therefore they HAD to be disinfo agents.
moon moon is not wrong. agree with him or you are an impediment to TRUTH.
All anyone needs to do to see that you are wrong is to go over the thread, why would anyone take your word over the contents of the thread that they've already started reading: Without checking it for themselves to verify if It's true?
>>15571818 >>Oh please in the name of Randi and Shermer! Let this cast doubt upon Moon Moon's credibility!
>>15571833 Your reliance on cognitive dissonance and attempts to hijack the truth are showing:
>>As such, the term "skeptic" now refers to the one who suppresses and attacks the questioner, rather than the questioner himself. In other words, the new "skeptic" is someone who debunks a "skeptic" by wearing the hat of the person they are out to debunk, in effect impersonating them! It's a highly deceptive form of role reversal that is sneaky and deceptive.
>>Fortunately though, the true skeptics, critical thinkers and freethinkers see through this BS and call them on it. And that's the purpose of this page, to expose this mind control and hijacking of terms to mean their opposite.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.