Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We can disregard the size of anything not man-made. Mainly because we do not know the technology available to other older races. It could be huge or it could be minute, but if it is man-made, then there are limits to our current knowledge which mean we do not build huge or minute structures in space like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
What big "things" were they talking about? I could certainly imagine it might have been in reference to the size of rocks and boulders, or even craters, first hand from the surface. Close up, such objects would certainly seem much larger than views seen through telescopes, or photos from an orbiter, especially after being in cramped quarters for the journey to the Moon. Just setting foot on the surface of the Moon would have been a pretty overwhelming experience.
I think you underestimate the professionalism, education, and expertise of the astronauts here. I think most of them have been test pilots and highly trained and I do not think anything ordinary such as a large rock or crater would make them give such a comment. Also, our experience has not trained us for moments such as this so we would be far more gob-smacked at the experience of a Moon visit. Of course we would be in awe of our surroundings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnina
I think if there really IS anything NASA would investigate it already. No?
One of NASA primary roles is as a public relations arm of the space exploration drive. Look at the articles which are published, many of which are speculative, and push multiple theories by scientists. OK, I understand that scientists disagree too sometimes, but data from Mars, for example, should enable a consitent evolving storyline. The example of the griding down of the 'fossil' and other missed opportunities for investigation leads me to believe they are not really bothered in looking for life on other planets, in spite of what they say.
If a rover has fulfilled its primary mission, then more investagative science can be justified. The MERs both lasted a long time past their sell-by date, yet many once-in-a-lifetime opportunites were passed over.
Maybe they really do know what is going on up there. The question of extra-terrestrial life is such a big deal for many groups, I can appreciate how a government would not want to rock the boat and cause major unrest. Because of this, if NASA do know what is going on, then they certainly will not be telling us anytime soon. In the meantime we just have to be open minded about what MIGHT be out there.
The images I have posted are very similar in both size and structure and I do not think they are crater-edges or image artifacts. I realise that 2 examples are not a huge weight of evidence, yet it is a start. If we found more examples, then the evidence starts to build up for something which needs to be investigated officially.
We can disregard the size of anything not man-made. Mainly because we do not know the technology available to other older races. It could be huge or it could be minute, but if it is man-made, then there are limits to our current knowledge which mean we do not build huge or minute structures in space like this.
I think you underestimate the professionalism, education, and expertise of the astronauts here. I think most of them have been test pilots and highly trained and I do not think anything ordinary such as a large rock or crater would make them give such a comment. Also, our experience has not trained us for moments such as this so we would be far more gob-smacked at the experience of a Moon visit. Of course we would be in awe of our surroundings.
That completely dodges the question. It isn't about the "...professionalism, education, and expertise of the astronauts..." That has nothing to do with it, and I certainly don't underestimate their skills. That's an insulting thing for you to say. The fact is that the alleged quote of Armstrong is pretty vague, not specific, and could mean anything at all. So let's turn it around. While you're entitled to think it was not referring to "...anything ordinary such as a large rock or crater...", what makes you think it wasn't that?
On the other hand, you're not offering any opinions as to what such a statement might be referring to. You say, "We can disregard the size of anything not man-made." I can agree with that. We could make or manufacture things that resemble the shape of rocks, but we can't actually make rocks. You follow that by saying, "Mainly because we do not know the technology available to other older races."
I'd give credit to rstevens62 for at least having said the transcript was allegedly made by Armstrong. Let's look at what the term "allegedly" actually means. It's used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof. In other words, it's uncertain there was a transcript of Armstrong saying that. It's possible such a claim could be just a hoax. It wouldn't be the first time that sort of thing has happened. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/allegedly
Assuming the transcript was or is real, we're still left with a vague statement that could mean anything. The statement does not say what exactly it is talking about. We KNOW there are plenty of rocks on the Moon. We do NOT KNOW if there is anything made by technology of other older races (aliens, mooninites, Soviets?) on the Moon.
If it wasn't rock or boulders Armstrong saw, then what do you think was he talking about to make such a comment? Try to be clear and to the point about it. My opinion is at least plausible, so you can't simply dismiss that as impossible or unlikely.
That completely dodges the question. It isn't about the "...professionalism, education, and expertise of the astronauts..." That has nothing to do with it, and I certainly don't underestimate their skills. That's an insulting thing for you to say. The fact is that the alleged quote of Armstrong is pretty vague, not specific, and could mean anything at all. So let's turn it around. While you're entitled to think it was not referring to "...anything ordinary such as a large rock or crater...", what makes you think it wasn't that?
On the other hand, you're not offering any opinions as to what such a statement might be referring to. You say, "We can disregard the size of anything not man-made." I can agree with that. We could make or manufacture things that resemble the shape of rocks, but we can't actually make rocks. You follow that by saying, "Mainly because we do not know the technology available to other older races."
I'd give credit to rstevens62 for at least having said the transcript was allegedly made by Armstrong. Let's look at what the term "allegedly" actually means. It's used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof. In other words, it's uncertain there was a transcript of Armstrong saying that. It's possible such a claim could be just a hoax. It wouldn't be the first time that sort of thing has happened. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/allegedly
Assuming the transcript was or is real, we're still left with a vague statement that could mean anything. The statement does not say what exactly it is talking about. We KNOW there are plenty of rocks on the Moon. We do NOT KNOW if there is anything made by technology of other older races (aliens, mooninites, Soviets?) on the Moon.
If it wasn't rock or boulders Armstrong saw, then what do you think was he talking about to make such a comment? Try to be clear and to the point about it. My opinion is at least plausible, so you can't simply dismiss that as impossible or unlikely.
Well, there were plenty of radio operators who intercepted the message when he switched frequencies, it wasnt really a big deal back then, because I think alot of people expected them to find something extraterrestrial on the moon.
Plus, I read something about an interview that one of the other astronauts did, and when he was asked about this (what was said during the 2 minute gap), he clammed up and said NO comment, he said he did not want to get into that discussion, that is suspicious imo.
Ultimately though, I think this is like other 'ufo' incidents in the past, when Govts or people in important positions have made comments that allude to them knowing more about this topic....and then they go to great lengths to try and back peddle and explain it away as something else years or even decades later.
The mind can play tricks when the image quality is insufficient. The first is along the terminator, so it could just be the Sun illuminating the top of a crater rim. The last may be a small rille or a crater chain, and a cluster of boulders.
My first paragraph was referring to this post. I believe this explanation is stretching the imagination a little.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrine
You apparently think it is a structure of some kind?
...And you obviously think things which stick up from the ground and which appear tree-like in this way, are natural features on a "lifeless" moon.
NightBazaar, you said
Quote:
...I could certainly imagine it might have been in reference to the size of rocks and boulders, or even craters, first hand from the surface.
which I was saying that the astronauts probably know if what they see are rocks/boulders and they would not be surprised to see these items. If you want to be offended then go ahead, stamp your foot and never speak to me again. However, now I have explained myself, it seems not worth the bother.
Quote:
While you're entitled to think it was not referring to "...anything ordinary such as a large rock or crater...", what makes you think it wasn't that?
As I said, I think they would know the general size of rocks and boulders on the Moon, so anything which may have caused surprise would be something out of the ordinary. Particularly since they had some geology training (this info gleaned from reading an astronauts autobiography).
Quote:
what do you think was he talking about to make such a comment?
As you have pointed out, we do not know if Armstrong did make such a comment. However, since I have shown two examples here of what might be long straight stick-like things sticking out of the ground, and assuming they are not rocks or crater edges, then I would suggest there maybe things on the Moon which he was not expecting to be there (thats if he did make that comment).
Quote:
My opinion is at least plausible, so you can't simply dismiss that as impossible or unlikely.
I have explained why I do not think your suggestion was likely due to the high degree of training of the astronauts. See above.
As I said, I think they would know the general size of rocks and boulders on the Moon, so anything which may have caused surprise would be something out of the ordinary. Particularly since they had some geology training (this info gleaned from reading an astronauts autobiography).
I've been to the lava beds in Oregon numerous times. You're surrounded by lava rock of all sizes as far as the eye can see. Its just rock, but the scale of how much area it all covers is amazing. When astronauts went to the Moon, they were indeed impressed beyond words at the sight from a boots on the surface view like kids in a candy store. Golf, anyone? Alan Shepard hit a golf ball on the Moon.
Sure, those with geological training put their skills to work, but they're still human. Even a skilled geologist would have felt awed by the sight of what are otherwise just rocks, and by the opportunity of actually being there and collecting some of those rocks. How would you feel if you were able to go to the surface of the Moon? I doubt you'd feel it was just an ordinary ho-hum thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
As you have pointed out, we do not know if Armstrong did make such a comment. However, since I have shown two examples here of what might be long straight stick-like things sticking out of the ground, and assuming they are not rocks or crater edges, then I would suggest there maybe things on the Moon which he was not expecting to be there (thats if he did make that comment).
I agree with you, we don't know if Armstrong actually made the comment (see rstevens62 comment). However, there's some thought that the claim was nothing more than a hoax. Even 'Above Top Secret' says that Maurice Chatelain was NOT "chief of NASA Communications Systems". According to discussion on ATS, "Chatelain WAS a low-level engineer who DID work for a NASA sub-contractor who built the Apollo communications systems." There's a lot more at this link. Apollo 11 Armrstrong
I saw the examples of what you say "...might be long stick-like things sticking out of the ground..." As mentioned, they could be anything. As unlikely as you seem to think, why couldn't it be an unusual rock formation? Oumuamua was an unusual shaped object zipping through space. Why couldn't it be an illusion of light and shadow? Are you saying none of that is possible, or even likely? Do you think it might be some kind of evidence of plant life or a possible alien artifact?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
I have explained why I do not think your suggestion was likely due to the high degree of training of the astronauts. See above.
The high degree of training of the astronauts has nothing to do with their basic human nature. They're subject to feelings and impressions just as any other human being. In fact, most astronauts have indicated that being in space, or being on the Moon was an incredible and humbling experience. Sure, they had their jobs to do, and they did that in a very skilled and professional manner, but they're still human. They're subject to being awestruck from sights as much as anyone else would. If they weren't impressed in one way or another, there'd be something seriously wrong.
As mentioned, they could be anything. As unlikely as you seem to think, why couldn't it be an unusual rock formation? Oumuamua was an unusual shaped object zipping through space. Why couldn't it be an illusion of light and shadow?
Well, if you can show me other tube or tree-like rock formations on Mars or the Moon, then I can accept that this might be a possibility. However, it seems unlikely rock is formed into that tube/tree shape, and the Oumuamua object was still obviously rock, space-ice or meteor-shaped in nature (at least the artists impression I saw was). At that speed, do you expect it to puncture the ground like an arrow sticking up without making a crater?
You have to remember scientists use these images to do real science on the geology of the Moon so it is again unlikely it is just light and shadow, but thats the whole point of the thread to see what we think those structures could be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae
This thread is rapidly wandering away from science and into pure fantasy.
OK, rather than asking for it to be moved, steer it back on-track for this forum.
Perhaps you can tell us how science handles unknown objects in space and how we could make this topic more scientific to accomodate the science-types? There are many NASA scientists who pepper their articles with "maybe's" and "perhaps" type words, so what is so wrong with discussing and speculating about a couple of strange-looking structures on the Moon?
Being dismissive, ignoring it or not being curious is NOT scientific at all.
Well, if you can show me other tube or tree-like rock formations on Mars or the Moon, then I can accept that this might be a possibility. However, it seems unlikely rock is formed into that tube/tree shape, and the Oumuamua object was still obviously rock, space-ice or meteor-shaped in nature (at least the artists impression I saw was). At that speed, do you expect it to puncture the ground like an arrow sticking up without making a crater?
You have to remember scientists use these images to do real science on the geology of the Moon so it is again unlikely it is just light and shadow, but thats the whole point of the thread to see what we think those structures could be.
Just because Oumuamua was moving fast, doesn't mean everything in space moves that fast. You jump to some pretty weird conclusions. I mentioned Oumuamua to point out that there are objects with all kinds of odd shapes in the solar system and the galaxy. If the objects you've focused on are not just an image artifact (which they might not be), then it might be some kind of rock formation that landed on the Moon. They could just as easily have dropped down at a much slower speed relative to the speed of the Moon's orbit and cause a shallow crater. We don't know how deep or solid the surface might be. If it's fairly loose regolith, then it's possible to sink in without making a significant crater.
That said, the object in question appears to be close to the horizon in the views seen. There could be a crater, but the images just aren't showing it. It's also possible it could be a remnant from a basalt column. That's only a wild thought, but we do know basalt is present on the Moon. Approximately 26% of the near side and about 2% on the far side of the Moon is basalt. The object in question, depending on what it is, could be a few billion years old if it's related to lunar geology, or could have plopped down on the surface any time if its an object from space. The Asteroid Belt is loaded with billions of objects of all kinds of sizes and shapes. Same for the Kuiper Belt. There are objects (the Trojans) following Jupiter. Many of the objects in the Belts are shaped as they are because of numerous collisions. That's pretty clear from the closeup views of specific asteroids. We know objects still collide with the Moon because there have been a few flashes from the impacts caught on film.
I looked at the 2nd object you pointed out. Interestingly, it's located between a couple of craters. It might be a fragment, possibly a lunar fragment, either ejected or forced up from the impact. It appears bent which could have been caused from the extreme heat of the blast. It's just a wild guess. The first one might be similar if there's a nearby crater. The problem with both images is that they aren't close enough or clear enough for a more detailed look.
You've tossed in some vague descriptions about these things being tree-like structures. You haven't answered my question. Do you think they are or were trees? Or do you think they're artificial structures? It seems like you've pretty much snubbed geology.
Asking to show you tube or tree-like objects on Mars or the Moon so you can believe makes no sense at all. You can just as easily find tons of websites and videos showing all sort of objects depicting what the hosts claim to be crablike creatures, rodents, hovering spoons, a Bigfoot-like creature, a small woman, Egyptian-like sculptures and structures, remnants of a grandfather clock, the remains of cities and roads, large glass tubes and forests of giant trees on Mars, glass buildings on the Moon that are miles high, ruins of alien spaceships in lunar craters, a petrified thigh bone, and so on. Those are more the sort of things you might be into. Even if someone showed you realistic examples, you'd just find another unreasonable reason to dismiss it in favor of your own view. Wasn't it you that suggested Martian "blueberries" are mushroom-like (fungus) plants or rock plants (lithops)? We'd all love to find life on Mars.
Mars, the Moon, and all of space are still mysterious to us. In terms of space exploration, we're kind of like prehistoric people looking around at their environment to search for food or to spot threats. Our own human nature tries to make sense of what we see, and sometimes our imaginations assign various kinds of identification of shapes that seem familiar to us. That's pareidolia at work in our brains. To conclusively identify every object close-up that someone sees among the massive number of images from Mars, the Moon, or anywhere else, would be beyond the ability to do. It's just not possible to track down every single thing someone sees, although it'd be pretty cool if that could be done. Most of those images are after the rovers, orbiters, etc, have long moved on. We'd all like to know the answers to positively identify every little thing. The only way that's going to happen is if people could send their own personal rovers to the Moon, Mars, etc., or just go there in person. Maybe someday VR will be able to enable people to remotely do things similar to that, but that's not likely to happen any time soon.
You've described the lunar object as being tree-like. If you want geologists who study lunar images to help identify the object for you, why don't you just ask them? As a recommendation, I'd suggest don't just ask a question like what is this tree-like object because that would only show you have a preconceived notion about it, which is exactly what you do here. Just circle it like you have, and ask what they think the curious shaped object might be. Otherwise, your question might go over about as well as a fart in church. Regardless, they may or may not have any idea what it is, or their answer might not satisfy you. I would also recommend to not try to debate the subject with them, or they might very well terminate the conversation.
Try asking Harrison Schmitt. He's a geologist, in fact the only one, who went to the Moon on Apollo 17, and spent around 20+ hours on the lunar surface. He is also the person who photographed the famed and beautiful Blue Marble Earth photo. He has actively been pressing for missions to the Moon and Mars. Keep in mind that he's 84 years old but he still seems to be very sharp. I don't know how approachable or busy he is though. You could also check with NASA or JPL, or some of the universities that have a Planetary and Lunar Geology major.
If you're in China, why not ask their lunar geology experts for an opinion?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
