Ceres Predictions?

[HIjol]

Capricorn 1 ?!?!?!?...I KNEW it was real!!!

Maybe the spot is the Ghost of Harry Stamper?

Ok, seriously, in the first picture, it appears to me like one of the sides of the larger plateau(?), more easily seen in the close up second picture, cleaved off and is reflecting differently because of its new orientation. In the enlarged picture, the anomaly is due to a glitch or interrupted transmission of the pixels. No 1080 3-D yet...

...but I really want it to be a derelict Star Ship!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Half joking, but NASA is answerable to the U.S. Air Force, and I have heard quite a few stories about how they do have a policy of editing out any extra-terrestrial artificial artifacts out of photos before they are released for public consumption.

Post proof, or retract.

As you wish. <snip>

For the record, since it evidently didn't register, I wasn't inviting you to post anything short of proof, or a retraction. In other words, you failed to retract as I wished.

I won't be discussing this nonsense anymore in this thread.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

A close-up of the artifact. It is said to be a derelict starship.

Are there ALOT of these derelict starships lying around or is this the only one?

Also, if it's a derelict, why haven't the other aliens come and recovered/repaired it yet?

It looks artificial to me.

It looks like a shadow to me.

And you can find a bunch of other images if you type Moon Artifacts into Google.

Uh huh.

Seems legit.

Like myself, I'll leave it up to you to judge the chances that these might be real or not.

Oh, good.

Because I judge that there is NO chance that they're actual alien artifacts.

I myself would be just as happy is there WASN'T anything fishy going on!

Oh no, there's ALOT of fishiness going on right now, not just with NASA, but with the entire U.S. government. Secret meetings, secret deals, coverups, conspiracies, and a lot of bizarre back-staby nonsense.

None of it has anything to do with aliens, though.

 

[Christopher]

You can just barely see the artifact, which is circled in red.

It's not an "artifact," it's just a shape. It's always so silly when people freak out about some rock on Mars or somewhere happening to look like something familiar. There are billions of rocks on Mars or the Moon, and they all have different shapes. Of course some of them are going to accidentally resemble something that has meaning to the human eye.

A close-up of the artifact. It is said to be a derelict starship. It looks artificial to me.

It's a ridge of rock. It's clear enough between the two photos that the light has shifted, lengthening the shadows it casts.

Seeing airless, lifeless landscapes from high overhead is not something the human eye and brain have evolved to do. So our minds don't recognize what we're seeing and desperately scramble for something familiar to associate it with. So we imagine we see familiar shapes and structures.

It's called pareidolia -- the tendency of the human brain to imagine patterns where they don't exist. Our brains are evolved to construct meaningful patterns out of fragmentary information -- like, say, seeing an approaching predator through the leaves of a bush so we know we should run -- and that creates a tendency for false positives, imagining patterns in random information. That's why we can see animals in the clouds or mythological figures in the constellations or the face of the Virgin Mary in a water stain on a wall. We can even look at this -- -- just two dots and a curve in a yellow circle -- and perceive it as a human face, which is insane if you think about it. That's how good our brains are at superimposing meaning onto meaningless shapes. Which is why "That looks like X to me" is the worst possible reason to believe that something is X.

This, for example, on the other hand does look airbrushed:

Of course it doesn't look airbrushed. These images all need to be processed and enhanced to bring out the information they contain, which often creates data glitches. You can see the same kind of glitches show up in Photoshop if you enhance a digital image or alter its contrast or saturation. Also, these images are transmitted from millions of kilometers away, and sometimes a stray cosmic ray or a bit of interference scrambles a bit of the data.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Oh, wow. An additional 30 seconds of googling turns back this thing.

That image isn't actually an "alien starship" it's a sarcophagus. There's supposedly an alien body inside of it that was recovered by the ultra-secret Apollo 20 mission.

It's not even a hoax, it's really more of an elaborate youtube art project from back in 2007. It's just that UFO conspiracy theorists are notoriously sloppy about checking the sources of their information, so some of the images leftover from that 2007 project are still being circulated as if they came from NASA (they didn't; they were doctored for the project).

 

[hux]

Serious answer - I don't know, I'm not a chuffing astronomer but i believe the general consensus is ice or salt ?

Silly answer - they're gleaming cities and we're being watched by intelligences greater than our own as men with infinite complacency, go to and fro about the globe, confident of their empire over this world. Yet across the gulf of space, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic regard our planet with envious eyes and slowly, and surely, draw their plans against us.

 

[Christopher]

^War of the Worlds: The Ceres?

 

[HIjol]

You can just barely see the artifact, which is circled in red.

It's not an "artifact," it's just a shape. It's always so silly when people freak out about some rock on Mars or somewhere happening to look like something familiar. There are billions of rocks on Mars or the Moon, and they all have different shapes. Of course some of them are going to accidentally resemble something that has meaning to the human eye.

A close-up of the artifact. It is said to be a derelict starship. It looks artificial to me.

It's a ridge of rock. It's clear enough between the two photos that the light has shifted, lengthening the shadows it casts.

Seeing airless, lifeless landscapes from high overhead is not something the human eye and brain have evolved to do. So our minds don't recognize what we're seeing and desperately scramble for something familiar to associate it with. So we imagine we see familiar shapes and structures.

It's called pareidolia -- the tendency of the human brain to imagine patterns where they don't exist. Our brains are evolved to construct meaningful patterns out of fragmentary information -- like, say, seeing an approaching predator through the leaves of a bush so we know we should run -- and that creates a tendency for false positives, imagining patterns in random information. That's why we can see animals in the clouds or mythological figures in the constellations or the face of the Virgin Mary in a water stain on a wall. We can even look at this -- -- just two dots and a curve in a yellow circle -- and perceive it as a human face, which is insane if you think about it. That's how good our brains are at superimposing meaning onto meaningless shapes. Which is why "That looks like X to me" is the worst possible reason to believe that something is X.

This, for example, on the other hand does look airbrushed:

Of course it doesn't look airbrushed. These images all need to be processed and enhanced to bring out the information they contain, which often creates data glitches. You can see the same kind of glitches show up in Photoshop if you enhance a digital image or alter its contrast or saturation. Also, these images are transmitted from millions of kilometers away, and sometimes a stray cosmic ray or a bit of interference scrambles a bit of the data.

See post 21...great minds!...

 

[Metryq]

Of course it doesn't look airbrushed. These images all need to be processed and enhanced to bring out the information they contain, which often creates data glitches.

No need to get that contorted in your debunking. I know data glitches happen, but my first impression, without Googling—

Oh, wow. An additional 30 seconds of googling turns back this thing.

—is that it is doctored by the person trying to push the hoax. Why even assume that the image is direct from the alleged source without retouching? I saw a book called DARK MISSION, if I'm remembering the title correctly, by someone named Hoagland, again if I'm remembering correctly, who "worked for NASA"—credentials that automatically make anything he says legitimate.

The book contained photos allegedly tossed out of the official NASA archives showing alien structures on the Moon. One photo showed an astronaut bouncing away from the camera over the lunar landscape. In the sky was the tracery of struts allegedly making up a "dome"—which looked like someone had crumpled up the photo causing cracks in the emulsion.

 

[Nebusj]

I saw a book called DARK MISSION, if I'm remembering the title correctly, by someone named Hoagland, again if I'm remembering correctly, who "worked for NASA"—credentials that automatically make anything he says legitimate.

Richard Hoagland, yes. I'm unaware of any confirmation he ever actually did anything for NASA, although it's of some how-deep-does-the-wormhole-go amusement to note that he was a pretty serious Star Trek fan and in the 70s was one of the leaders of the campaign to get a space shuttle named the Enterprise.

 

[JES]

A close-up of the artifact. It is said to be a derelict starship.

Are there ALOT of these derelict starships lying around or is this the only one?

Also, if it's a derelict, why haven't the other aliens come and recovered/repaired it yet?

It looks artificial to me.

It looks like a shadow to me.

Okay, if even the enlarged shape in the image looks more like a trick of light and shadow, than an artificial shape to you, then I'll even go as far as saying that I might doubt the image a little more myself, though I still am having a hard time NOT seeing it as a shape that shouldn't be there, no matter how many times I look at it! Then again, I tend to see things 50/50; maybe it is an artificial shape, and maybe it IS just a trick of light and shadow.

As for why it would still there, according to supposed astronaut named William Rutledge, who was a part of this supposedly secret Apollo 20 mission to investigate the derelict craft: the crew's study supposedly determined that the craft was at least a billion years old, badly damaged from what seemed like a battle in the distant past (and no doubt asteroids and meteors would leave their mark).

Whoever built it probably determined that it was too badly damaged to be worth attempting to salvage, though the story goes that the Air Force/NASA eventually did lift it to a base somewhere else on the moon for the tech inside.

I'll admit that a hole in that story is that I find it hard to believe that they could salvage a ship that was supposedly as big as described, with the equipment that they probably would have been stuck with, unless Luna's microgravity helped them lift it to somewhere else that was more convenient.

Oh, wow. An additional 30 seconds of googling turns back this thing.

That image isn't actually an "alien starship" it's a sarcophagus. There's supposedly an alien body inside of it that was recovered by the ultra-secret Apollo 20 mission.

It's not even a hoax, it's really more of an elaborate youtube art project from back in 2007. It's just that UFO conspiracy theorists are notoriously sloppy about checking the sources of their information, so some of the images leftover from that 2007 project are still being circulated as if they came from NASA (they didn't; they were doctored for the project).

Really, because according to the story that I heard, it was a derelict ship, and there were two bodies inside, one of which was in pretty bad condition.

If you could find the source of this 2007 project, then that could help me call the supposed ship and bodies fake.
TBH, that body just doesn't looked dressed like how you would expect an E.T. of a supposedly advanced civilization to be anyways.

Uh huh.

Seems legit.

That example is a little unfair, because it is obviously fake. I didn't say that EVERY image result from Lunar Artifacts would be real!
I mean, what type of idiot would build a structure in a vacuum out of giant stone bricks!
Even my open mind finds it very hard to find that likely!

quote]Like myself, I'll leave it up to you to judge the chances that these might be real or not.

Oh, good.

Because I judge that there is NO chance that they're actual alien artifacts.

[/QUOTE]

Okay, fair enough. I guess that we'll probably agree to disagree.

 

[Mary Ann]

As for why it would still there, according to supposed astronaut named William Rutledge, who was a part of this supposedly secret Apollo 20 mission to investigate the derelict craft: the crew's study supposedly determined that the craft was at least a billion years old, badly damaged from what seemed like a battle in the distant past (and no doubt asteroids and meteors would leave their mark).

...determined the ship was at least a billion years old? I'd love to hear the "science" behind how that age was obtained.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

As for why it would still there, according to supposed astronaut named William Rutledge, who was a part of this supposedly secret Apollo 20 mission to investigate the derelict craft: the crew's study supposedly determined that the craft was at least a billion years old, badly damaged from what seemed like a battle in the distant past (and no doubt asteroids and meteors would leave their mark).

...determined the ship was at least a billion years old? I'd love to hear the "science" behind how that age was obtained.

Imagine how fucking amazing it would be to really discover something like this. The amount of money that would be spent to recover this artifact would eclipse possibly even military spending.

 

[Christopher]

The real science is more amazing than all this fantasy. If we're really seeing outgassing water vapor, then Ceres could have a liquid water mantle and possibly even hydrothermal vents, if it's anything like Enceladus. Which raises a genuine possibility that there could be life there.

 

[publiusr]

If I could visit one dwarf world--it would be Haumea.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

The real science is more amazing than all this fantasy. If we're really seeing outgassing water vapor, then Ceres could have a liquid water mantle and possibly even hydrothermal vents, if it's anything like Enceladus. Which raises a genuine possibility that there could be life there.

Well yeah, it is more amazing because it is real. That cannot be argued.

 

[publiusr]

This paper on asteroid surfaces seems interesting
http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.01931

 

[MANT!]

Ya know it could be Apollo 10's lunar module..

http://www.space.com/13010-snoopy-nasa-lost-apollo-10-lunar-module-search.html

Though it's probably just ice...

Though stranger things have happened...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J002E3

 

[Metryq]

Ya know it could be Apollo 10's lunar module..

http://www.space.com/13010-snoopy-nasa-lost-apollo-10-lunar-module-search.html

Interesting speculation, but where would it have gotten the boost to "climb" all the way to Ceres?

 

[MANT!]

Ya know it could be Apollo 10's lunar module..

http://www.space.com/13010-snoopy-nasa-lost-apollo-10-lunar-module-search.html

Interesting speculation, but where would it have gotten the boost to "climb" all the way to Ceres?

the same way NASA spacecraft slingshot to Mars ,Jupiter, even Saturn. Venus and the sun..