Odd figure shaped anomaly on the Moon.

originally posted by: Bilk22
The shadow length can determine the height of the object based on the known angle of the sun. I don't know how to obtain the angle of the sun from the timestamp of the pic. I'm sure Phage can help with that

There's a different browser for these images, and it gives more information about the image: wms.lroc.asu.edu...

The phrase you're looking for is "Incidence angle", which is the sun angle from the vertical (with 0 meaning sun in zenith, and 90 meaning sun on the horizon). For this particular image, sun angle was 69.3 degrees from vertical, so being about 30 degrees from the horizon.

When looking at shadows, it's important to remember that shadows falling downslope will be longer than the ones falling on level ground.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Bilk22
]OK thx. The object is 26m x 26m. ( 85' x 85' )

Check again. More like about 26 x 21 pixels, or about 12 x 15 metres.

Ah yes. I didn't do the conversion. Thanks.

a reply to: Phage

Oh my god!...They're tracking it as it runs!

a reply to: Lady_Tuatha

Story about same hit the Huffington Post today.

It seems this anomaly is generating interest including The Daily Mail. See Huffington Post story below:

Did NASA Capture An Alien And It's Shadow On The Moon?

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: Bilk22
The shadow length can determine the height of the object based on the known angle of the sun. I don't know how to obtain the angle of the sun from the timestamp of the pic. I'm sure Phage can help with that

There's a different browser for these images, and it gives more information about the image: wms.lroc.asu.edu...

The phrase you're looking for is "Incidence angle", which is the sun angle from the vertical (with 0 meaning sun in zenith, and 90 meaning sun on the horizon). For this particular image, sun angle was 69.3 degrees from vertical, so being about 30 degrees from the horizon.

When looking at shadows, it's important to remember that shadows falling downslope will be longer than the ones falling on level ground.

Not knowing the inclination of the terrain and based on your info, I get the object to be between 8 and 9 meters or about 30' tall.

it's a shadow of something in the sky


a reply to: Lady_Tuatha

it could've been something in the sky casting a shadow


a reply to: Rob48

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Blue Shift

Well it's nothing physically on the moon so the light direction is irrelevant. But yeah, the light is coming from totally the wrong direction to produce a shadow as annotated on the video!

you started on the right track with it not being anything physically on the Moon but then ignored the begging of the question part which points to it being a shadow cast by something hovering some height above the surface

it looks like the Doo Dah Man to me www.thechickenhawk.com...


a reply to: drewlander

what's up with that "pyramid" to the right?

a reply to: wildespace

"if you know where to look" I love it when you guys have a chance to win a lot of people over with your evidence and then you make it difficult to see what you are talking about by making them jump through hoops.

why not spend some time compiling a few dozen and you'll win the argument prize?


a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Blue Shift

Well it's nothing physically on the moon so the light direction is irrelevant. But yeah, the light is coming from totally the wrong direction to produce a shadow as annotated on the video!

you started on the right track with it not being anything physically on the Moon but then ignored the begging of the question part which points to it being a shadow cast by something hovering some height above the surface

But (as I and others have pointed out already, both in this thread and a similar thread made 4 years ago about this same "figure") it appears on hundreds of images from the Apollo 15 Mapping Camera taken of totally different places on the Moon, and most importantly, it appears in the exact same part of the image frame in all of those images.

Which leads me to the conclusion that it may have been debris on the scanner used when all of these film images were scanned it digital form. I suppose it could even be something in the camera.

Whatever it is, the fact that it appears in hundreds of images in the exact same part of the image convinces me it is not a real object on or near the moon.

a reply to: Phage

nothing yet says it isn't a shadow of something following along with the camera

I saw three examples of the shadow from the man himself Phagerino (that's what I like about Phage he does his homework and uses his language skills like a magician). the one before the one in question, the one in question and the one after the one in question. What about the one after that? or the one before the one before the one in question?

nothing so far says it can't be a shadow from something moving along with the camera.



a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

a reply to: bottleslingguy

Phage showed images A15-M-1154, A15-M-1155, AND A15-M-1156.


Here is the "object" as it appears in image A15-M-2306:



It can also be found in many many the images before and after that one

Here it is in image A15-M-2327, again in the exact same part of the image frame:




In a post above, I gave the location of the object in the image frames, and I posted a link to all Apollo 15 mapping camera images, but here is that link again:

wms.lroc.asu.edu...


EDIT TO ADD:

Here is a blurred image of NOT the Moon (A15-M-0016). I think this is a picture of something in front of the camera:



The "object" appears in this image, too:

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

This comment here is the best that has helped me resolve the mystery in my head.

You see, posting pictures before, during, and after only proves that whatever cast the shadow - moved. That titillated me. Giant's roaming the moon!

But - it this is true, that the humanoid popped up all over the sector in the same place on the image - well then I'd have to say it's dirt on the lens. Where are the series? Shouldn't they be available? The successive line of images taken from that instrument while it had whatever it did on the lens?

ETA - Oh you posted while I was composing my post. Thank you!

CdT

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

so why not in m-1157, m-1158-59-60 etc? or m-2328-29-30?

why can't it be something locked in orbit with the camera?

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

so why not in m-1157, m-1158-59-60 etc? or m-2328-29-30?

I found it pretty quickly when I looked on 2328:



and on 2329:



and 2330:




I couldn't find it on 1157, because I think if it is there, it is blending in with the craters. It would be somewhere in the middle of this zoomed image.



I also couldn't find it on 1158, but 1158 is getting really dark in that part of the frame:



1159 and 1160 are almost black in that potion of the image (the upper left, where the object always appears), as you can see for yourself:

AS15-M-1159
AS15-M-1160


I didn't want to post all of the hundreds of images in which the object appears because:

(1) That would take me days,
(2) ATS would not appreciate it, and
(3) why should I, when people can just look for themselves at all of the images, which are in the link below:

Apollo 15 Mapping (Metric) Images

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

why can't it be something locked in orbit with the camera?

As I showed in one of my posts above, it also appears in one of the first images that seem to be a blurry close-up of equipment on the spacecraft:

full image (AS15-M-0016):



And zoomed into the object:




There are several images (such as 1176) that seem to be solid grey (i.e., an image not of the moon). I can't find the object in those. One explanation for this might be that maybe the spot is NOT debris on the scanner used to digitize these images (if it was, it would should up when these "grey" film images were scanned in).

Instead, it might be something on the original camera lens. These grey images may just be blank/unused parts of the film roll, and they were never imaged through the lens (hence the reason the debris on the lens didn't show up).

Anyway, I'm not convinced that theory as to why it isn't on those all grey images is correct, either, but I AM convinced that the "object" could not be an object in space or on the moon -- and just miraculously find its way to the EXACT same part of the image frame of hundreds of images of different parts of the moon.

I mean, I suppose almost anything is possible, but that would be highly, highly, highly unlikely.

originally posted by: Bilk22
Quite unlike the other "rocks" you mention. No?

Not to me. Not enough for me to consider it extraordinary or potentially artificial, if that's what you're going for. But if you think it's SO DIFFERENT, hey, good for you.

originally posted by: Bilk22
This "artifact" may have been discussed or posted before, but can this be identified? Link to source I'd also like to determine the size of this object. What is the scale for those images on LROC?

Link to larger ATS image

Does anyone know how I can find or can provide a link to the location in my quoted post here, from another date of a satellite pass?