posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 06:43 AM
I usually do not like to direct conversation directly to one person in forums (usually ends bad), but since I was singled out here I will reply.
Nventual the reason for the two photos being stretched in horizontal and vertical directions is because the one you supplied was put together by means
of mosaic tiling and flattened. The one that jra supplied was taken and although it looks like it too was put together by means of mosaic tiling it
was not flattened. These are both common means of creating topographical maps. When comparing one against the other they often seem to be a little
distorted due to the flattening process. There are several different types of maps. Some of them include Globe, Mercater, Mollier I believe (sp), and
there are several other types as well. Each one will surprisingly give you different distortions of a particular area. All are correct, they just are
different ways of presenting a representation of an area.
Getting back to the area on the moon, it could be argued that this was not present at the time the photo was taken in jra's photo. The only problem
that I have with that argument is that the size of this object would be incredibly large and to be constructed in less than 30 years seems out of the
question to me unless it is a very simple structure. The only way that I can imagine a structure like this to be able to be constructed that quickly
would be if the object was not stationary and it was able to be placed into position (again, wow that would be a feat!).
Not sure if I just imagined this or not, but wasn't NASA planning on possibly sending a satellite to take new photos that were actually going to
finally prove that we landed there years ago by viewing the objects that were left there? If this is the case maybe we can see then.
[edit on 31-7-2005 by Kata]