The first of its kind, the highly sought-after book highlighting hundreds of strange and anomalous geometric shapes appearing artificial to the surface of the Moon is once again available for a limited to as a high-resolution ebook.
What do we see when we look closely at Apollo-Era photography?
Could these be alien structures on the Moon?
RepetitionRepetition can be a tricky determiner of artificiality. It happens in nature quite often so why not on the Moon? Well for starters, “Mother Nature” doesn’t visit the Moon very often except mostly in the form of meteorites. So then the question is, when we apparently see dusty and crusty repeating solid objects such as these (both obvious and implied), what are we to make of it? “Natural” to the Moon or remnants of ancient intelligent activities?
Rectilinear ReliefAgain we have the scenario that “Mother Nature” hasn’t been to the Moon in a very long time. So how is it then that we can see rectilinear paths, in relief to the surface when there is no known active (or effective) erosion? Is this some kind of complex structure built long ago or could it be a gigantic expression of crystal that’s been growing undisturbed for millions of years on the surface of the Moon?
Site/Situation/AssociationSite has unique physical characteristics which might include elevation, slope, and type of surface cover. Situation refers to how the objects in the photo or image are organized and “situated” in respect to each other. Association refers to the fact that when you find a certain activity within a photo or image, you usually encounter related or “associated” features or activities. (via Wikipedia )
What do you see in this photo? Buildings or rocks?
According to Wikipedia, Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. …People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. …people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way. …Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. In other words, if you believe we are not alone in the universe, then what you will see are the remains of a “city” or “industrial complex”. If you believe we are alone in the universe – either because there’s no scientific proof or because of the technical limitations of space travel, then you will see nothing but a bunch of rocks and tricks of shadow and light. I didn’t get a chance to ask this question when I was showing some early findings to an archaeology professor with experience in aerial archaeology, but I can tell you how our conversation ended: “If you hadn’t told me those were on the Moon, I would’ve told you they were man-made. But you can’t quote me on that.” Okay, I’m quoting her, but her identity is safe. It was so long ago I don’t remember what she looked like and never bothered to ask her name.
Would you like to be part of the Pareidolia Moon Project?
One of the goals of the Pareidolia Moon Project is to develop new methods and standards in orbital xenoarchaeology by bringing together researchers and philosophers of various skills and mindsets to review image data of our nearest neighbor for signs of intelligent activities. If you would like to be part this new effort, I am looking for level-headed and intelligent volunteers who can spare a an hour or more per week performing searches, analyzing photos or contributing in other various ways by sharing their knowledge in:
Mapping and Photogrammetry Aerial Photography and Remote Sensing Planetary Sciences and Astronomy Mathematics and Programming Ancient History and Architecture Engineering and Optical Sciences Archaeology and Aerial Archaeology Artists (sketch, storyboard, and concept renderings) Any non-terrestrial focuses (Exopolitics, Astrobiology, SETA, SETI, etc.) Veterans and government personnel trained in spy photo analysis
You can come into this a hardened critic, a skeptic, or a “believer” – it doesn’t matter as long as you can contribute in an intelligent dialog as we rate and rank each finding. Additionally, you’ll need to be open-minded enough to entertain new perspectives, assist directly or indirectly by inventing or inspiring new research and visualization methods, and a whole list of other qualities typical of any niche research community. Sound interesting? Want to know more? Then contact us today with verifiable proof of who you are and a summary of your skill set(s) and I’ll get back to you as soon as possible.