I saw a mound of mud once while wading in shallow water. Had a few rings on it that seemed a little odd but still it was just a pile of mud. When I got close the mud turned into a stingray and buried its stinger in my leg.

Explore the uknown and make assumptions at your peril.

Alrighty , then!

We still landed on the moon.

__________________
Banned By Nancy Lieder

bart5050. I thought originally you were saying you were trying to debunk the claim.

Perhaps I misread your posts.

Are you saying an alien spacecraft crashed into our Moon?

Are you claiming that your imagination is not at work here?
Teasing your brain with wonderful "possibilities?"

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." -- Vaclav Havel

Quote:

We just don't know much.

Yet if not for those words, what would science be for? - KaiYeves

I propose an ATM corollary to Godwin's law: an ATM'er will inevitably compare himself to Copernicus (Or Galileo), when the going gets tough. - CodeSlinger

I am not looking to debunk or to prove validity. I want to know the truth. When I first saw the vids some months ago I set out to debunk. Could throw out everything but the three metrics and the unusual nature of the anomaly in actual NASA photos.

Nor do I make any claim of amazing discovery. Others have already made those unsubstantiated claims.

Probably this will turn out to be a natural formation. When I inquired of this from NASA they did not respond. Nor have they made any public statement. My guess is that they cannot say with absolute certainty what it is or is not.

However with the number of official photos that keep turning up they were certainly curious. The photos from official sources are not clear enough to say with any absolute certainty. I have seen some really blurry ones from earlier in the lunar day than the one A15 high res photo to make public release. So other high res photos do exist.

The only photos that do claim a definite answer are highly suspect with no documented source.

Leaves me undicided and I want to know the truth. Seems that will have to wait for better evidence.

Chances are much greater that they have better things to do than chase every Goose folks throw at them.

This is not a personal statement against you- just a act that NASA gets pretty barraged with such claims and questions.


Oh ok. You want to just know the truth?

It's a BIG ROCK

Glad I could help

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." -- Vaclav Havel

Quote:

We just don't know much.

Yet if not for those words, what would science be for? - KaiYeves

I propose an ATM corollary to Godwin's law: an ATM'er will inevitably compare himself to Copernicus (Or Galileo), when the going gets tough. - CodeSlinger

Umm, your spaceship is covered with impact craters. It has the same crater density as the surrounding terrain. Therefore, it is not a few decades old and is in fact several billion years old.

So if the stone spaceship landed on the moon, it landed when the surface had just hardened.

__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender

If they only want to answer questions of their choosing then why have an ask NASA public outreach site at all? I thought that its purpose was to answer my questions.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...S15/M/1037.jpg
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...S15/M/1038.jpg
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...S15/M/1333.jpg
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...S15/M/1334.jpg
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...S15/M/1335.jpg
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...S17/M/2805.jpg
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...S17/M/2806.jpg

I am crazy about rocks. Still have my first rock collection from childhood. This is the most fascinating rock I have ever seen. Its even better than the forty pound one that I drug through five miles of rough river rapids to display in my living room.

Just look at all the NASA pixs of this rock. It would make me so happy to see the original raw data scans of these pixs. The rock is out of my reach so I want better pixs of it. Just crazy about big rocks.

Why a space ship? Because it looks space shippy to us? Reminds me more of the nose of a jet fighter from the 60/70's (Personal observation if I was to compare it to anything) I would think streamlining and space shippy looking may not be the best use of resources to get between stars. Apart from no need for it as far as I understand it.

One picture in the many posted (in a link) here reminds me of a lava flow. Now, bearing in mind the age and the activity on the moon without the usual stuff that happens on Earth I prefer at the moment to believe its is a geological feature.

It is well known that piles of mud and stingrays can both be found in water.

It is an unreasonable leap to go from, "It looked like mud and it was a stingray; it looks like a rock so it's a spaceship."

It is an interesting shape, and when flights to the moon are commonplace and cheap, it will be worth getting a closer look. But it does not strike me as being a priority.

In the meantime we could check out various commonplace objects to see if they are something else in disguise.

You make strong valid points. I wouldn't want to waste budget money on it either. Better uses for a billion bucks like space telescopes.

I would just like to see all the original data all ready in existiance. Satisfy my curiosity and put an end to contrversy. And have cool pixs of a strange big rock.

Which telescopes would they be? Thought that rock formation was on the far side of the moon?

Just wondering.

No, would like access to all the mission raw data of moon. Data all ready in existance. Not just one A15 scan.

As far as telescopes. I was just saying that would be better use of money than a mission to go look at a big rock.

But wouldn't it be cool to have a big telescope on the far side of the moon. Could have better support fascilities than in space. Big mirrors like here but no need for adaptive optics. Fourteen days of dark to look at deep space. Fourteen days of light to look at the sun.

Look to develop the moon as well. Could be the first step to mfg of space hardware off the earth. Big savings in fuel and energy not having to escape earth gravity.

No zero G for comfort of staff. Zero G cheap and easy to achieve when wanted for experiment.

Raw materials for mfg. Go underground to protect from radiation during corona ejection.

Benefits of a science station on the moon would be immense. I think it could be done within a decade or two.

Why waste money on big expensive trip to mars. Establish a viable base and mfg ability on the moon and mars mission gets easier and cheaper.

Now that I would vote tax dollars for.

If I recall correctly, you can order any Apollo photograph from NASA.

__________________
I animate LEGO Bricks as a hobby. Isn't that just awesome?!

Like a Corvette is a robot in disguise you mean?

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Say something useful.

We don't leave crashed aircraft lying around.Aliens would take away the bits to find out why it crashed or just so that we don't get it or even see it..

That sounds confusing to me. Wouldn't knowing the truth be done by proving validity?

I'd like to add my vote in favor of NASA's busy.

I don't follow your logic here. Are you saying that that particular hi-res exists because other hi-res exists?

You made a comment earlier about the grain of the pictures. If the scan is detailed enough to show grain, then how can you suppose that there are higher resolutions?

I would also call into question the eccentricity of the orbit. Can anyone out there tell me about that? If it were eccentric, there there is a more likely chance that there were no other opportunities for such a hi-res when compared to other parts of the orbit.

It's fine that your undecided, but I would like to know how you think the evidence weighs against each other.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Because one photo exists doen't mean there are others.

Also I can't even see the so called spaceship in the pictures.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Yeah, I can't find the shape in any of the links you gave to those Apollo 15 and 17 maps either, bart. Also, I've been trying to find the original photographs the maps you gave were made out of, but I suck at looking for those.

EDIT: Hmm, it would seem that some of the pictures you gave aren't actually maps, but scans that kinda went wrong. Or something like that. I'm still "investigating".

__________________
I animate LEGO Bricks as a hobby. Isn't that just awesome?!

I am leaning towards it is a big interesting rock. There is n