Strange Area In Photograph

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

I tried that before and it got jumped on. Maybe my approach does need refining a little bit

a reply to: lunarrover

The first photo is interesting, do you have a photo ID for that? I know that you posted that photo before, but I'm too lazy to look for your post.

Edited to add that it's photo AS11-42-6247.

The second image was resized (and resampled), so we are looking at JPEG artefacts and artefacts of the resampling algorithm. Once more, looking at the original would be better. And yes, I know that you posted that image before.

And edited again to say that it came from this page.

a reply to: ArMaP

The red spot pillars are not jpeg artefacts they are huge structures as are the angled blocks.

Well done on finding the anomalies and I would be shocked if they have never been posted before???

Anyway, back to the image in the OP.

I earlier opined that the structures that I see are often very abstract and difficult to describe, however a recurring there is a pipe with some sort of grommet around. I am trying to bring out the data so it is very difficult to garner a perfectly clear image which will appeal to all tastes. Look for upright structures in the crater and a shepherds crook outside the crater walls. You could spend years working with this image.

a reply to: lunarrover

One thing I learned from Clementine images is that images made with ultraviolet light used as blue creates images that appear overexposed in some areas. That image you posted, in its black and white version, looks normal.

Edited to add that when I say "in its black and white version" I mean one of the wavelengths used.

originally posted by: lunarrover
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Until you recognise the blocks on Crooks and the nuts and bolts/pillars and gromets in the red spot you may as well stay out of it.

Not the way this place works any member can comment on your delusional posts because that's all they are, you have shown nothing new and have just joined a long list of people on here that claim to know about images/video when obviously they don't

Yup - unless you have "Moderator" after your name you don't get to tell me to do anything. Again, another breach of T&C's on your part.

Let's have a look at the latest crock of nonsense. Here's the latest candidate for the frost-tinted spectacles of the OP, first as shown by Kaguya:

and next by Chang'e-2

Now here's the same view as constructed from the relevant topographic data and from the same view as the way it has been presented in the OP image:

No mystery objects.

As for the Lassell Massif area in Mare Nubium, here again is the Japanese data:

and one from Chang'e-2

India has partial coverage

Here's the LRO's 3D view:

target.lroc.asu.edu...

Again, no mystery large objects, no large blocks sticking up. The 'red spots' that show up in the image are a construct of the image processing that has been done, and do not reflect what any amateur can see through a telescope, like this:

asv.org.au/gallery?dir=Stefan%20Buda

and doesn't even scratch the surface of the many other orbital images that steadfastly refuse to show anything remotely like the items you claim are there.

What you do need to do is explain where you get your images from and how you treat them, because the latest one you posted from that Apollo 11 image seems significantly different to the original you posted, which already differs from the actual original. You also need to account for the fact that not one single high resolution image shows anything like you claim. Not one. Only your low resolution over-processed ones. Telling people that it's some sort of illusion or that some kind of trick is being played does not count as an explanation, it counts as a feeble excuse.

a reply to: lunarrover

You could spend years working with this image.

You could do, but it would be a waste of time.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

All set to con the public cgi fake tripe.

Next.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Is that right is it ?

I categorically do not agree with 100% wrongness irrespective of how many people you have shouted down in the past.

.

a reply to: lunarrover

All set to con the public cgi fake tripe. Next.

Is that it? You have been shown the originals by posters who are clearly more knowledgeable about such things than you (and me, for that matter) and you just wave your hands and cry "fake"?

That's pretty lame.

a reply to: oldcarpy

They are not the originals they have all been tampered with to fool the sheep.

a reply to: lunarrover

Ah - sheep, are we? That's nice.

a reply to: oldcarpy

No not you.

Joe "scared of their own shadow" Public.

a reply to: lunarrover

That is a very patronising and superior attitude to adopt, especially as you have nothing to back it up.

a reply to: oldcarpy

No except 50 years + on planet earth.

Look what happened with Orson Wells ?

a reply to: lunarrover

Top notch presenting of evidence supporting your case there. Really superb. Well done. The neutral observers really will be impressed by the depth of your technical knowledge and your ability to construct a logical argument.

Now, where are the impressive structures and pipelines?

Have some more images of the Lassell Massif that show absolutely nothing like the objects your imagination finds there.

catalog.archives.gov...

www.flickr.com...

www.flickr.com...

www.flickr.com...

a reply to: lunarrover

Dying following a long life and successful career?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

No. I intend to be sticking it to the man as long as possible.

Saying something is superlative when it is utter dross is beyond contempt. Funny how you are not posting hi res Clementine images.