reply to post by vasaga

---

This has been discussed in detail on ATS. Two schools of thought:

* Natural eroded rock.
* A piece of wood.

If the latter, then it is pretty interesting! But as to what it really is will only be known once we get our boots up there and analyse it!

Cheers!

reply to post by vasaga

---

Yes, this is very old news, and in my opinion this is just one of those slab-like stones, the whole area is full of them.

And it has nothing to do with Moon images, why did you post it here?

Edit: I was once more a victim of the bug that hides the last page when it has just one (or more, if the thread is bigger) post, now I see my post is redundant.

[edit on 1/12/2008 by ArMaP]

reply to post by GideonHM

---

Mypersonal thanks to the author of the thred berating those who vent their ignorance by insulting and debunking that which they cannot see and perceive. As an amateur I have been studying Lunar pictures for almost fifty years. One of the first thing I learned is that those black and white images are deceptively easy to not see what is really there. It takes practice and a great deal of time to thorghly study them. I have often gone back and studyed a picture weeks, months and even years later and found myself seeing it in a whole new way. Those who look at a picture and say " I see nothing" probably don't . But they should consider they may not be qualified to judge.

What I see evident here is a lot of people who want to be a debunker suffer from a total lack of open mindeness . If that tweaks their ego..............GOOD...Einstine

Here's something pretty interesting! This image is from the Russian Zond Moon craft. Notice what look like geometrically spaced lines/furrows at the base of the crater. The image has been sharpened using the 'unsharp mask' filter. Whodunit? Or are they natural lava tubes? Doesn't look like it though...



Cheers!

www.mentallandscape.com...

reply to post by mikesingh

---

It looks like the photo (or negative, or whatever) that was scanned, when in contact with the scanner's glass, made those marks, like when two plastic sheets with a little moisture are put on over the other.

I say this because the area of the photo that is in the shadow also shows those marks.


PS: if the photo was scanned on a drum scanner or another type of scanner besides the most common type (those that have a glass where we put the original to be scanned) then my theory does not apply.

reply to post by ArMaP

---

You're right ArMaP, this is a very good observation. On my monitor I don't see anything, the image needs to be brightened a lot. In the C_Zond08_59detail picture the same grooves are visible in black shadows around the area, when contrast and luminosity are adjusted. As they don't follow any ground features and are present in shadows, the most likely explanation is scanning artifacts producing a moiré pattern.

I forgot that the marks could not be visible in different monitors, so here is a brigthened version.



Sorry.

haha, lol. Parrell tracks? Those seem pretty simalar to the tracks from the vehicles the lunar landings used to collect samles. As there is no wind or air disturbance on the moon, they will stay there for eternity, unless disturbed. Inverted D? Pyramids, spires. Next people will be thinking aliens are using cloud shapes to send messages to us. The triangle is the most commonly recurring shape in the natural world, so a pyramid is likely to appear, especcialy since mountains tend to look triangular. A little off topic, but remember people going up in arms because the lunar landing looked totally fake since the flag was moving like there was a wind? You'll also notice the flag is in vivid colour and the rest of the scene is black and white. This video was an edition released to the public to make the whole scene more dramatic, as this was the whole point of flying to space, to make the public get patriotic about beating the russians, which we didnt do anyways. Many people had black and white set still then and didn't see the colour difference, so they naturally assumed it wasa mistake in the production of a fake video.

reply to post by ArMaP

---

You guys totally missed it!

Someone call Richard Hoagland!



They are farming the moon, too!

reply to post by ArMaP

---

You're right! But it looks like a dirty thumb impression too. Don't these guys wear gloves? But heck, I wonder how exactly they develop these prints? I thought it must be in a completely sterile environment. But just look at the dust particles, thread, hair, developer blotches and so on littering the images. Jeeez!!

Cheers!

reply to post by cogburn

---

Now what the Dickens is Hoagy supposed to be looking at on the purple Moon?

reply to post by mikesingh

---

I don't think the problem was with the developing of the photos but with the scanning of the photos.

Also, re-reading the page from where you got that photo, it says that the higher resolution images, like the one we are discussing, were digitised from the film, and that would explain the contact moiré pattern.

reply to post by estar

---

Well, I will just say one thing. And because this picture got out, I'll just say one thing. Those spots have something very special which I'm sure a lot of people see, but don't realize what they are. So, I'll just say straight out. Look at all the moon pictures. You will realize that there are a lot of domes in a lot pictures you see. NASA uses a trick to embed stuff into the picture so that eventually they look like part of the moon. But, I'll you figure out what process that is. Practice makes perfect. There are just a lot of tricks you guys...

has anyone tried a compare / contrast between two or more images from the same area over a period of time to see what differences (if any) occur?