It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Moon: moved object.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I made this post in one of John Lears topics today, but i wanted this to be checked here also..

In the pictures below, marked by the arrow. You see something moved from between the small craters to the right, above the 3rd crater from top.
There is also a weird white 'structure' at 8 o'clock near the big crater.


Picture nr.1 original link:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
Picture nr.2 original link (12mb gz file):
astrogeology.usgs.gov...






posted on May, 16 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   
When these pictures are taken they aren't like regular photographs and just snapped right? Aren't they taken in like long narrow swaths and then stitched together to form one big pic? Is it possible that during the stitching proces that something was not where it was in the original? Maybe if the satellite scans just a fraction of a milimeter off it will cut out miles of land and when its stitched together be placed somewhere else?


Pie



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   
These are 2 seperate pictures taken at different times (see shadows) Why would only that spot be moved horizontal by 'stitching' the pictures? You can see everything else is still lined up. The .gif is one picture, and the big file is made from vertical pictures.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Well if you look at the top picture and then look at the bottom picture, many of the bumplike objects all over the pic are not there as well. I don't think its just that spot. I was just asking about the photo process because to me that would explain a lot. Visually if you look at the bottom and top pic you can see things in the top pic that are not there in the bottom pic. Its not just that one white bump.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 03:43 AM
link   
You are free to point (with graphics) to things that are not shown on one of the pictures.



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I agree the resolution or sharpness is different between the two. There are hundreds of little bumps in the sharper photo, shown on top, that appear to vanish into the surface of the second photo.

Not sure you can say something 'moved' without a track and even then you're talking aerial photography which is strongly influenced by sun angle and shooting angle and processing.



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   
The "sharper" picture shows more detail yes. So if the lowres shows an object that has an identical size then something must be there no? Or shall we just blame everything on a bad quality photo?



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Looks like the shadows are bigger in one photo than the other (different sun position). So it could be there but it just caught the darkness, which made it appear to disapear.



posted on May, 18 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
Looks like the shadows are bigger in one photo than the other (different sun position). So it could be there but it just caught the darkness, which made it appear to disapear.


If the sun is casting a shadow, there must be something to make the shadow. I dont see anything there that can cast a shadow. The argument that the quality is bad i can agree with, the sun/shadow story not


[edit on 18/5/2007 by Cygnific]



posted on May, 18 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   
True, however if it was a crater and in one pic the sun hits the side of the crater it may be to low on horizon to catch the side of the crater in the other pic. Then it would be to dark to see.
Is it a crater we are talking about by the way?



posted on May, 18 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Good find.


But I think it's a crater (which are concave in shape). This 'object' is concave too, so it's nothing but another crater. Check out your image below where I've turned up the brightness/contrast. Notice the position of the shadows of all these craters? They're on the same side. This wouldn't have been the case if it was a convex object where the shadow would have been on the opposite side. Yes, a convex object could have indicated 'movement'.



It's nothing but a light and shadow effect, so it probably can't be seen in the other image, giving the impression of 'movement'. But hey! What do I know?


Cheers!



posted on May, 21 2007 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Why is it then that the object can be seen right from its original position on the lower image if it was simply a crater that can no longer be seen? another crater same size that can now be seen perhaps?



posted on May, 21 2007 @ 06:04 AM
link   
OK. Here's another so called movement. Check out your first image. Left of your arrow do you see a prominent crater? Now look 0 degrees or due North and you will see two round craters, one cigar shaped, and finally one more circular crater.

Now check out your second image. Voilla! The crater below the cigar shaped crater has disappeared! Or 'moved'!

Cheers!



posted on May, 21 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Mike's response was wonderful -- and accurate.

It's hard to judge what's there based on two different photos taken at different times. The height of the sun on the lunar plane can wash out shadows in a shallow crater, making it appear as though it's vanished... or show deep shadow on a previously washed-out crater.



posted on Jun, 25 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Mike's response was wonderful -- and accurate.

It's hard to judge what's there based on two different photos taken at different times. The height of the sun on the lunar plane can wash out shadows in a shallow crater, making it appear as though it's vanished... or show deep shadow on a previously washed-out crater.


I have to agree with you and Mike. I apologize for my very late response.
But indeed, the surface of the moon can totaly change with a different degree of the sunshine.




top topics



 
0

log in

join