what do you guys think about the supposed ancient derelict ship on the moon from the Apollo 20 footage?

Well i have been diving in the Baltic sea and i can tell you that you really can't see shit down there

According to the divers it's a disc shaped object of unidentified material sitting on top of a 50 meter high pedestal. Also there is a hole on top of the structure with water flowing out of it. Also electrical equipment has been malfunctioning near it. They have also said that the surface is so smooth that the divers have difficulty holding on to it.

I'd love to but unfortunately i'm stuck with my crappy netbook because i just moved to my second apartment that is closer to my school and i didn't take my proper computer with me

I would have used the sun from the original photo, duplicated it and altered the colour of the lower one.

what do you guys think about the supposed ancient derelict ship on the moon from the Apollo 20 footage?

Antza2, no foul language on the forum please.

So were the divers able to see anything or not? You said that they did first, and now you say no...

was trying to use the exact same image of the suns that the hoax-maker used, which was the Tatooine sunset from that exact shot from Star Wars. I was trying to show how it could have been done better, without changing the pictures being used to make the image.

Sorry. No offence intended

I meant that you can see a little bit (like a few meters) but you can't see the whole object at once.

There are actual photographs of the object:

The picture with the pebbles is from the top of the object and it was taken as proof that the object is older than the ice age. (The ice carried the pebbles and dropped them on top of it as the ice melted

I'm not offended, it's just forbidden in the forum rules (which I happen to agree with) and I'm a moderator, so...

So the only pictures that exist so far show a surface covered in sediment and rocks, just like the rest of the sea floor? This does not look very convincing of anything extraordinary to me.

So the only pictures that exist so far show a surface covered in sediment and rocks, just like the rest of the sea floor? This does not look very convincing of anything extraordinary to me.

But if the structure had been constructed after the ice age it wouldn't have those rocks on top of it (some experts had said that it probably is a Nazi submarine trap. These pictures disprove that.)

I agree that the pictures are a bit of a letdown but they have stated that they don't usually operate in waters this deep and that they have had very limited time during their expedition because of their gear.

I understand their limitations. One good picture to get would be at one of the "corners" shown in the initial sonar images, where three straight lines converge at 90° angles. That would have been fascinating to see.

Edit: What i think:

I guess we'll have to wait them to finish the 3d scan and for the university to tell what they think of the samples

The ultimate proof for me would be if they were able to raise this thing from the sea, though that would be difficult, expensive, and potentially damaging to the object.

I probably would not fully trust any account that was not independently verified and peer reviewed

Since the object is 60 meter wide i think that's impossible.

I think if Stockholm University is investigating the object i can also trust in the validity of the findings.

It is 60 feet (18 meters), the length of a medium sized jet fighter. Much larger objects have been raised before I think. It all depends on its mass. If it's hollow, it could be raised fairly easily. If it is solid, then it would be much harder.

it's that I don't automatically give credence to data obtained by one source, at least not unless it has gone through a certain process of review. Because there was only one group involved in gathering the samples, and one university involved in examining them, then errors could more easily arise and not be accounted for. I don't distrust either organization, it's just that it takes rigorous standards of evidence to satisfy my skepticism

No, it's clearly the Ebon Hawk

It pains me how ignorant and credulous people can be sometimes

I meant that you can see a little bit (like a few meters) but you can't see the whole object at once. There are actual photographs of the object:

at it's size and weight, ever flew

They can't see the terribly misaligned pixels?

As far as I know it has yet to be weighed, its composition is still undergoing analysis, and its size is smaller than many flying machines constructed by humans. Even the space shuttle orbiter was bigger, and it was orbit capable.

they don't know that Mars has only one sun