http://www.ufodigest.com/images/apollo20-3.jpg

Τhe above is an original NASA photo (from Apollo15 ) that a guy uses in a series of videos that supposedly shows an ancient spaceship on the moon during an alledged secret lunar mission(Apollo20)

The photo is taken from a stereo pair panoramic view Apollo15 mission created southwest of Izsak crater (far side of the moon):
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...e/?AS15-P-9630

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...e/?AS15-P-9625

The large crater in the center of the picture is International Astronomical Union crater (IAU) no. 308, which is located at 179 degrees east longitude and 5.5 degrees south latitude. IAU crater no. 308 has a diameter of about 50 statute miles.

The coordinates of the object in question are:
Nose: 17.3 deg S, 117.62 deg E ; Cockpit: 17.25 deg S, 117.62 deg E;

The object reminds of a huge missile or a cigar shaped object and its size must be around 4-5kilometers in length!!! (so if it's artificial it must be from alien origin, not manmade)

I have created a stereo pair useable for viewing with 3D Red/Blue Glasses (Red on the left eye)

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/1573/3dstereosu9.jpg

where if you zoom in you can see the object's "nose" clearly stand high above the lunar surface!

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/alientartzoom.jpg
Here is an alleged close up of the spaceship used by the "apollo20" guy.
Which is most probalby a hoax attempt based on that old genuine lunar anomaly.
This guy logged in YouTube on Aprils' fools day.
Also the represantation of the lunar surface the video uses is not exactly the same with the NASA lunar photos and with a fakeish ground appearance (as a model made of mud).
Moreover, the alleged Apollo20 video (link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc7mkHtuLOs ) shows communication between the astronauts and the Vandenberg base on Earth which is impossible at that time, because the spaceship is supposedly orbiting the far side of the moon! (above Izsak Crater)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izsak_(crater)
Far side of the moon blocks all radio communication with earth as it is a well known fact from all the apollo missions.

So, independandtly of this guy amateur hoax attempt, what do you think of the NASA object in question ?
Ancient giagantic Spaceship on the moon or an interesting geology feature?

Well, of course it's an ancient spaceship! I think the Greek had something to do with it.

Seriously though, it's an interesting shape.

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

Neither.

Just another ill-informed misinterpretation of an image.

Everyone having a good time? Enough to drink? Ah, the appetizers. Artifacts, anyone? Peg? Jay? Good.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

So you don't think its an alien artifact. You believe its just rocks standing high above the lunar surface.? A trick of light maybe? Have you checked the 3D Image?

Don't forget thought that NASA official early 60's BROOKING's REPORT (link: http://www.enterprisemission.com/brooking.html ) didn't exclude the possibility of finding alien artifacts on moon, venus or mars.

Addition: I am not 100% sure what is the large crater in the center of the NASA stereo pair. Does anyone have a clue?

Your reference to the "Enterprise Mission" is a 16 ton anchor dropped from your 100 pound pram. Too bad you've only got no feet of line in a 13,400,000,000 foot sea.

Meanwhile, before you sink beneath the HB/CT waters, check out this bit about pareidolia.

BTW, we were so informed about the Moon, Venus, and Mars back in the early 1960s that it's amazing we actually went ahead and explored them. After all, we already knew all that we needed to know.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I really don't care what Richard Hoagland's "interpretation" of the Brookings report is as he has shown time and again that his "interpretations" are simply made up nonsense unworthy of serious scientific investigation.

Why would anyone jump to that conclusion without supportive evidence???

Relax, I am not about to sink in the HB/CT (??? Hoax Biliever?) waters!!!
As you have probably noticed I am not taking a thesis in this subject about the object. I am just asking questions and searching foe information about the craters, landscape, coordinates etc.
If you want my opinion about this feature I believe it's probably a rare geological feature, but I can't exclude the possibility of an alien artifact until higher resolution images become available.
You see you might think that we have 100% completed the exploration of the moon while I am sure that we are still in the begining. We haven't explored almost nothing yet and most of the pictures we have are of poor resolution.

We are not talking about Richard Hoagland interpretaion of the Brookings report, we are talking about the page 215 of the Brookings Report which among other things states:
artifacts left at some point in time by these life forms might possibly be discovered through our space activities on the Moon, Mars, or Venus.
Read for yourself:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/brook-7.gif

This report was written from NASA specialists.

The Enterprise Mission does not have answers or information.

Why do you consider this a "rare" feature? It's really not that odd at all.

Sounds like Hoagland talking about the "face".

All it is is a ridge with a ledge-like feature poking out of the shadowy side. Meh.

__________________

New! It combines the power of science with the gentleness of your mother's best intentions!
A new miracle technique, we apply homeopathic methods to achieve scientific efficaciousness
for dilutions WAY beyond Avogadro's Limit. It's New! It's Fresh!
It's Placebo^[tm] Brand Power Drink! *[Use as directed. May increase kidney function.]

I know that most people here are prejudiced against Richard Hoagland

So, RAF you disagree with NASA specialists Brooking's report.

You completely exclude the possibility of finding artifacts on the moon,or venus, or mars.

You think that we are alone in the universe!

It's rare. If you look through the 3D glass you will see that it's like a missile that crashed in the ground. Nose is standing up. If it's a geology feature that is something that will create interest for the geologist. An ancient asteroid impact maybe...

I don't know about "most people", but, for me, what I've seen of Hoagland's "contributions" to planetary science indicates a lot of speculation, and very little (approximating none) supporting evidence.

Should Hoagland provide some objective, verifiable evidence to support his claims, I might change my conclusions about what he presents.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I am not Richard Hoagland. Sorry I can't help you with that.
I wonder Is it possible to talk about these matters without refering to Richard Hoagland?

Does anybody know if Lunar Recconaissance Orbiter will photograph this region next year?

Hoagland simply cannot provide credible evidence for almost everything he says. This is a science board.

Nuff said...

The Brookings report does not say that we have found any evidence of artifacts on the Moon or elsewhere.

Show me the evidence for artificiality...what you have linked to does not.

I think you like to "put words" into other people's mouths...not a good idea on this board.

Are you a geologist? If not, then why would you think that this natural formation is "rare" or "interesting"??

Hoaglands ideas are so similiar to yours, I don't see how we can just ignore them particularly since You are the one who "referred" to the Enterprise Mission.

You said:
So repeating your question, are you a geologist?

Anyway, I am not liking the mood here so I am not willing to discuss this anymore with close minded people.

Are you?

If you don't like people asking you for evidence, GLP would be the board of your choice...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916

Why not just answer the question?

You made the claim that this was a "rare" and "interesting" formation. I want to know how you arrived at that conclusion. Throwing the question back at me is an obvious "dodge".

It is NOT "closed minded" to demand credible evidence for extraordinary claims particularly on this board.

If the only "evidence" for artificiality is "to me it looks like an alien spaceship", then I can understand why you don't want to continue this discussion.