Strange Area In Photograph

a reply to: lunarrover

i have looked at the image for days now and still only circles that look like craters, can you highlight the things youthink look weird?

originally posted by: SerenTheUniverse
a reply to: lunarrover

i have looked at the image for days now and still only circles that look like craters, can you highlight the things youthink look weird?

I can see them as plain as I see my toes, especially in the first page of images. I can see them without even zooming in, or enlarging the images. Some people do have a hard time seeing them. It takes a trained eye and more than a few days to get accustomed to looking at landscapes. Try rotating the images 90 degrees at a time until the perspective looks more natural, ie, right side up type of thing. Also, if you have a magnifying glass try that up to the image on the monitor instead of zooming with the computer.

Don't be discouraged if you can't, but don't join the other group who can't see them no matter what and become angry and hostile claiming it is all a dream and then try to attack those who can see them. It really isn't and those anomalies are there. The former deputy director for the Clementine mission even says they are there in many lunar images, which is about as high a confirmation as anyone could ever ask for, not that I need that myself.

Not everyone can even be trained to see these things, just imagine, if it was so easy then anyone off the street should be able to qualify as a professional image analyst for the NRO/CIA/NSA without any problem. If they handed you an image of a landscape, with some hard to spot oddities and ask you what you see, and you say "I just see rocks", well, you don't get the job.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: lunarrover

You've been proved wrong time and time again, you're just too blinkered to realise it. Stick your head in the sand all you like, it'll make a change from its usual place.

Your problem is that the raw images I downloaded weren't jpgs. Download the originals and do your own work instead of trying to make mine forced to fit your agenda.

You haven't proved a single thing, plus this thread is not about your junk images, it's about the ones the OP posted on the very first page, and those images are quite interesting. Also, the concept of "something strange in an image" is very specifically speculative and is a concept for discussion, not forcing proof of anything. If anyone wants proof for a simple speculation about a lunar image, then you and everyone else including myself must go to the moon and verify it, but none of that was included in the intent of this discussion.

I for one appreciate this thread.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

[snipped]

I'll repeat the same to you:

The sources of all the images I have posted are publicly available and I have supplied links to them, as well as to my page that shows you how to process the images. If you don't think that the images I have posted are legitimate, prove it. If the things in the images I have posted aren't genuine, prove it.

Posting a very poor quality image that has already been messed with, without any source for it, and then playing the "emperor's new clothes" tactic without any effort whatsoever to substantiate the claims is just a poor excuse for your claims not holding any water at all.

As for your Clementine claim, you need to prove who said it, about what, and exactly what involvement they had in the Clementine mission. If you mean John Brandenburg, being "involved in" Clementine is not the same as "being in charge of it".

I don't need to go to the moon, but instead of just taking your word that something unusual is there I'm prepared to verify the claims that are made by using as many sources as possible, not just one really crappy version of a much better photograph. The while "you weren't there, man" tactic is just another lazy form of debate that you think excuses you from backing up your position. It does not. I am also not prepared to be dictated to as to which threads I can post in and what opinions I am allowed to have. I don't see you or the OP backing up your claims with anything but "shut up I know what I'm talking about, you don't". How many Gb of data did you download this week to support claims in this thread? How many books did you check?

Post your evidence. I've put the effort in. Where's yours?

originally posted by: lunarrover
a reply to: Jefferton

I imagined this...

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Pretty amazing. Of course officially there aren't supposed to be any "walls" on the moon.
Perhaps someone up there doesn't wan't war like humans migrating past that barrier.
Not to mention the Dish style antenna(s) in the image. Something to ponder. Definitely artificial. Seeing some rectilinear shapes that look like box and truss construction as well.

Let Us Be Clear:

Attempts to keep anyone from posting is considered Gatekeeping and is NOT allowed.

Insults of any kind towards each other is NOT allowed, ANYWHERE on ATS.

ALL opinions are welcome.

ATS is NOT a Echo Chamber. People will and do disagree on things.

Civilty and Decorum is ALWAYS expected of our membership.

If you find that you can not post without taking some sort of dig or pot shot at whom you are debating with, then stop and go else where. You do not need to be posting here.

ATS is a place for debate and discussion. It is NOT a BATTLEGROUND.

Agree to disagree if you can not find common ground.

And, as always: Do not reply to this post.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
The former deputy director for the Clementine mission even says they are there in many lunar images, which is about as high a confirmation as anyone could ever ask for, not that I need that myself.

Source, please.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Also, the concept of "something strange in an image" is very specifically speculative and is a concept for discussion, not forcing proof of anything. If anyone wants proof for a simple speculation about a lunar image, then you and everyone else including myself must go to the moon and verify it, but none of that was included in the intent of this discussion.

Yes, finding anomalies on Moon photos is speculative, but when people refuse to look at other options that's not speculation. If someone says that, from 3 or 4 different photos of an area only 1 is good and the others are garbage then they should say why.

I for one appreciate this thread.

I appreciate what this thread could have been, but not what it turned into. After all, I have been participating in threads like this since I joined ATS, almost 15 years ago.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

OK, so we have some features people find interesting and believe are satellite dishes and a wall.

The OP image was taken by Apollo 16's Metric Mapping Camera (MMC) on its 60th orbit of the moon. On its 17th and 18th orbits it also took images of the area in question, this time from directly above. Here's a source for an image of comparable quality to the OP's:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Here's a crop of it with the region picked out identified.

The first thing to mention is that the "wall" is actually the crater rim, technically a wall but a perfectly natural one. Drawing a line on a feature and declaring that it is a wall does not make it a wall. The "satellite dishes" are just impact craters. We can see that more clearly when we look at a higher resolution 1.2 Gb raw scan of the image from here:

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

Sticking with Apollo for now, we also have Apollo 15, which flew over it on several orbits, but here's the area from MMC image AS15-M-1609:

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

There's also this oblique view from Apollo 10 in AS10-32-4806:

catalog.archives.gov...

And another from Apollo 12, AS12-51-7565 - this time from a different viewpoint that clearly shows the crater rim and the 'satellite' craters as just that - the crater rim and craters.

www.flickr.com...

I have adjusted the levels in the Apollo images to make the details clearer. The raw MMC tiffs in particular have a lot of unwanted light level information that needs toning down in order to make things clear. If you don't like that, download them and do the same - you'll find nothing has been added or removed.

The OP and NoCorruptionAllowed like Clementine because they think that someone vaguely connected with it who then went on to make ludicrous and totally unfounded claims about nuclear war on Mars and by sheer coincidence had a couple of scifi novels to promote said some stuff. Here's Clementine's view of the area, taken from here

astrogeology.usgs.gov...

It's a combination of 2 tiles, and anyone who thinks that Clementine is a better source of imagery is just not looking seriously at the qualititative differences between it and other sources. Speaking of other sources, there are plenty of them that make it much easier to identify that we are simply looking at small craters and the crater rim. Here is China's view of the crater from above:

Now from a few different angles in the 3D model:

And now for Japan, firstly with a couple of views showing how different lighting affects what we're looking at:

As you can see, the 2nd one is built from several tiles which makes building the 3D models more challenging. Speaking of which, here are some 3D perspectives from Kaguya:

Again, brightness levels have been adjusted to bring out detail, but absolutely nothing has been added or removed.

So there we have several images from a variety of sources all showing pretty clearly that the alleged wall and satellite dishes are nothing more than natural features involving the crater rim of and impact craters within Kiess crater. I haven't even bothered with the LRO images, but just for the sake of completeness here's the same area rendered in 3D from the LRO quickmap site:

target.lroc.asu.edu...

No walls. No satellite dishes. No boxes or trusses.

If you don't like any of these images, tough. I'm not interested in whether you have a problem with the photographs, or whether your belief system won't allow you to accept that they are genuine. I don't care if you don't like the source, or what I've done in order to present them to you. If you have a problem with any of it, then you need to prove to me that they aren't correct, or don't genuinely represent the true appearance of the lunar surface. Seeing as you can't go to the moon then these are all you have to go on.

You don't get to arbitrarily dismiss a source just because you don't like what you see or that it proves you to be comprehensively incorrect. Simply telling me "you are wrong" is both discourteous and inadequate and does not even begin to register on the scale of what amounts to acceptable proof.

You have the sources and the means to process the images yourself. Off you go.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I take issue with phrases like "definitely artificial" ... "for certain" and so on because they are absolutes. Absolutes have to be followed up by evidence of the claim and you've yet to do that. Stick with "it looks like". But I realize after reading certain members posts over the years, that they live in their own world and have to force-fit shapes into intelligently created objects in their mind. There's also no special "mental wiring" to pick out these objects. That's pretty hilarious though.

Look at your first response to lunarrover 30 minutes later. You claim you can see strange stuff on the moons surface. You see a: "cylindrical object with another smaller shaft centered into the larger cylinder". That claim is shot down by providing different perspectives of the same crater and what you see is only a trick of light and shadow. Yet here you are still making erroneous claims. Claims with no supporting evidence. Doesn't that first knee-jerk response of a mechanical object that's shown to be wrong make you question the other things you're seeing? Isn't that common sense? When you're proven wrong on something, it's time to step back and reassess. So why do you keep seeing objects that aren't there?

BTW, no one is angry or attacking those that are seeing these objects. It's more like shaking sense into their heads because it's difficult to understand people being this naive. Being naive or there's a purposeful objective here trying to help make the forum flourish.

Respond to OneBigMonkeyToo's post above as well, I don't want to hijack his response. You've been proven wrong once again and I'm curious as to how you wiggle your way out.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I'm curious as to how you wiggle your way out.

The high resolution images are fake.

Obviously. Even Hoagland knows that.

a reply to: Phage

I stand corrected!

Absolutely Wow! In the Swasey. Crater I see something like a rocket launcher or its something that extends out and is so e type of radar detection device. In the crater behind that one it looks like buildings of a sort.
Is this located on the back side of the moon?
Thanks for this brilliant post.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

The former deputy director for the Clementine mission even says they are there in many lunar images, which is about as high a confirmation as anyone could ever ask for, not that I need that myself.

Did they? Do you have a source for this?

originally posted by: FreeFalling
Absolutely Wow! In the Swasey. Crater I see something like a rocket launcher or its something that extends out and is so e type of radar detection device. In the crater behind that one it looks like buildings of a sort.
Is this located on the back side of the moon?
Thanks for this brilliant post.

Of course you do