LRO image of Crystal Towers!?

reply to post by NightVision


Why except the premise of anything NASA gives you then? See the post I made a few above this and explain why it's ok for NASA to rotate their images.

reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw


What could possibly make you think these are crystal towers?

What could possibly make you think these are towers at all?

reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw


One thing for sure. THAT'S NO CHEESE.

Ok, besides the jokes....as "they" showed to me a few times a vision of something like the moon in the middle of the day and clear sky, but this one is awfully closer. I ask him "Is that the moon coming down?....never got the answer. See, if NASA tells me something...that could be another of their thousends of lies, but if I believe NASA I'm gonna be considered a normal reasonable person.

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
So, if the picture isn't valid because it has been rotated, then what do you think of NASA? According to shrike this would be proof of a NASA haox!

A rotated image doesn't invalidate it. And that's not the issue here. The problem here is your claim that the original LRO image has been rotated because it looks like 'crystal towers' when you flip the original image 180 degrees. That seems to be the only reason you have for believing the image is rotated with no other evidence to show.

Lastly, LRO images are allways posted in a long rectangular strip that runs straight up and down. Now unless you think that all the images taken by LRO are 100% perfectly inline with the longitude of the Moon (and I can assure you they are NOT) then all the images can NOT be aligned with the "top" of the photo pointing North. In other words LRO photos are not posted with North pointing up.

Generally there is some correction that needs to be done to align the image so that 'up' is north. But the LRO and most other probes that map planets tend to be in a polar orbit, so there isn't a lot of correction that needs to be done. From what I've seen, it seems to be standard procedure to align images so that up is north when being published.

The difference with LCROSS is that it wasn't mapping the Moon, but simply observing a specific event. The orientation of its camera's isn't really relevant.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by jra]

reply to post by jra


You are correct. A good esample is some orange: you couldn't map it with a series of palallel lines, at some point, you'd need to apply some corrections, to fill-in some gaps, and yet you could have some black areas (missing data). This also was also one of the reasons that caused the huge amount of glitches in Clementine Lunar Image Browser 1.5, lately almost entirely fixed in Clementine Lunar Map 2.0 (Beta): needless to say, the more advanced are the techs involved, the less chances there are to fall into these mistakes.
All in all, before Kaguya-Selene, Clementine images were the most detailed available: with 1.8 million digital images having been released in less than two months, it's safe to say that they did a great job.
But now, we are in front of some never seen before data, the technologies involved are amazing, so are performances:
here's for example, last half an hour of fly-path of LRO:


Basically, in half an hour it covered, at low altitude, this semi-circle:

and not only it photograped stripes over stripes, but did it with some submetric precision, thanks to Laser Ranging System.
Besides, LRO has more "eyes" looking at the Moon, some of them are (by the scientific view) way more important than pictures: CRaTER, DIVINER, LAMP, LEND, LOLA, Mini RF, are sending back to Earth precious informations about our yet mysterious Moon: the appearance of these data might be less "spectacular", but their importance of course is not second to hi-res imageering. Actually, i think that scientists are way more interested in data returned by LOLA and and by LEND.
I do see why many could be disappointed by their appearance, but seriously no photo even taken of the Moon could compare to these ones. Marius crater is an out of the ordinary example, since its formation is previous to the one of Oceanus Procellarum (the dark area all around is bade by a layer of basaltic lava: since this basaltic lava even filled the crater itself, here's why its appearance is dark, and why we can safetly conclude its old age. This also implies that many scenarios have to be considered regarding landlides and what caused them, including volcanic activity, but on top of that we can clearly distinguish the bright small craters inside the main one. Their formation is more recent than the main crater itself, then each one of them could have forced the unsound material to to slide downhill due to the seismic shocks caused by their impacts. This is the most likely explanation, even a very (relatively) small impact would be able to determine a shock causing landslides.

reply to post by jra


Just to be clear, I wasn't originally saying that the LRO team had posted the image upside down, rotated, with North pointing down, or anything else. I was just pointing out that rotating the image isn't the same thing as a hoax.

However, at the time I made the last post it occured to me that LRO images are not presented with North pointing to the top of the screen.

Here is a picture from MRO


See how it is taken at an angle, but is still presented with North facing up?

Well this is not how LRO images are displayed. With LRO they are always rotated to fit neatly into a verticle rectangle. So up on a LRO photo isn't always North, it could be NE or NW or some variation. Unless every single image taken by LRO is exactly parallel to the N/S axis of the Moon then they can't be displayed with the top of the picture pointing true North.

I hope that makes sense, and if it does then it's an interesting piece of trivia (for me at least), but like I said my original point wasn't that the team had rotated the image to disguise anything, just that the way I presented it wasn't incorrect.

Originally posted by jra

The difference with LCROSS is that it wasn't mapping the Moon, but simply observing a specific event. The orientation of its camera's isn't really relevant.

OK, well I don't agree with that. Infact it seems to me that you are picking and choosing your standards. I show an image that isn't pointing North and you claim that image doesn't count.

Alright well I didn't really want to use this image, because it is pretty much a third rail, and could open a whole can of worms that I think would be bettter left for a different thread, but here goes.



Well there you go. A image taken on a mapping mission by MRO. I'm sure the feature is fairly recognizeable and I'm sure we all can easily tell it has North pointing down, or toward the viewer.
What's even worse is that even though I wasn't trying to argue that the LRO team had rotated the image in the OP in order to mislead us, it is hard to imagine any other motive when it comes to the picture presented in this post.


PS: notice the URL clearly states it is from NASA and not some random website.

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
Just to be clear, I wasn't originally saying that the LRO team had posted the image upside down, rotated, with North pointing down, or anything else. I was just pointing out that rotating the image isn't the same thing as a hoax.

It sure sounded like you said the LRO team posted the image upside down when you wrote:

"When I first saw this my initial reaction was "WOW" then I realized that the picture is upsidedown from the way it is presented on the official website..."

and

"Maybe the question should be, why did the LRO team decide to post the picture upside down? Was it to make them look less like towers?"

However, at the time I made the last post it occured to me that LRO images are not presented with North pointing to the top of the screen.

Perhaps not directly North, but still 'northish' if you want to be really picky about it.

See how it is taken at an angle, but is still presented with North facing up?

It's at an angle because it's a map projected image.

Well this is not how LRO images are displayed. With LRO they are always rotated to fit neatly into a verticle rectangle.

They aren't rotated that way. That's how they come straight from the probe. Even from the MRO, just take a look at the non-map projected images.

So up on a LRO photo isn't always North, it could be NE or NW or some variation.

Well of course. Like I said before, some correction needs to be done to align the image so that 'up' is true north. But what you were claiming was that the image was flipped 180 degrees and not slightly NE or NW. And I have yet to see any evidence of that.

I hope that makes sense, and if it does then it's an interesting piece of trivia (for me at least), but like I said my original point wasn't that the team had rotated the image to disguise anything, just that the way I presented it wasn't incorrect.

Well it really did seem like you were saying they rotated the image to hide things, but if that's not the case, then I'll leave it be.

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
OK, well I don't agree with that. Infact it seems to me that you are picking and choosing your standards. I show an image that isn't pointing North and you claim that image doesn't count.

Well I don't find the LRO and LCROSS to be even remotely comparable. Two completely different probes with completely different mission objectives.

Well there you go. A image taken on a mapping mission by MRO.

That's from the MGS actually and not from the MRO. And It's an image showing a 3d topographical surface that has an image from the MGS being used to texture that 3d surface. In what way does this relate to the original discussion? I thought we were discussing the original images themselves being rotated and not screenshots of 3d generated surfaces that have been rotated.

What's even worse is that even though I wasn't trying to argue that the LRO team had rotated the image in the OP in order to mislead us, it is hard to imagine any other motive when it comes to the picture presented in this post.

Wait, so you think that this 3d 'face of Mars' image has been purposely rotated to mislead us? Isn't one of the reasons for having topographical data is so that one can view surface features from various angles?

[edit on 17-11-2009 by jra]

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
So, if the picture isn't valid because it has been rotated, then what do you think of NASA? According to shrike this would be proof of a NASA haox!

Don't quote me incorrectly as you have done above. Don't ever say "According to shrike..." if I've never said it.

I didn't say that if NASA rotated the picture it would be proof of a NASA hoax; you created that comment. Hoagland rotated a NASA picture and I didn't have to say it to make it evident. You must understand that because of such shenanigans I've had to add you to my Ignore list.


[edit on 17-11-2009 by The Shrike]

reply to post by The Shrike


I didn't quote you. I was just pointing out that by your own logic that NASA would be guilty of a hoax because you accuse others of hoaxing images when all they have done is rotate an image.

That's not a quote.

I'm not sure what the image is, but put it in a skirt, a bob haircut and some glasses and it's ready to serve!

Originally posted by jra

It sure sounded like you said the LRO team posted the image upside down when you wrote:

"When I first saw this my initial reaction was "WOW" then I realized that the picture is upsidedown from the way it is presented on the official website..."

When I first saw the image it was already rotated that way. I then checked the source at the LRO site and realized that the image was rotated from the way the LRO site displays it. So, I not only pointed out that the image in the OP was not in the same orientation as the one on the LRO site, but that I wasn't as impressed with it when I saw the original orientation. I guess I can see how you could missunderstand this, but I hope it makes sense now, and should only go to show that I was just asking legit questions and not saying it was 100% anything way back in the OP of the thread.

"Maybe the question should be, why did the LRO team decide to post the picture upside down? Was it to make them look less like towers?"

This was just me defending myself. I re-asked the same exact question that had been asked of me only substituting NASA for me and Glass towers for landslides. I think this is a common and logical way to respond to a question and meke somone think about why or how their thought prosses might be flawed. I still maintain there is no up. I wasn't trying to assemble a map of the moon so why should it matter what angle I look at the picture from. It looks to me like you don't have a problem with the orientation of an image unless it is being used for mapping purposes... and I wasn't making a map so...

They aren't rotated that way. That's how they come straight from the probe. Even from the MRO, just take a look at the non-map projected images.

That is my point. LRO images have not been adjusted to have the top of the image facing North (but as I've said before this is just an interesting tid bit to me and not something I find scandolous)

Well it really did seem like you were saying they rotated the image to hide things, but if that's not the case, then I'll leave it be.

Well, let's just leave it be then, because that was not my intention.

Wait, so you think that this 3d 'face of Mars' image has been purposely rotated to mislead us?

Yes.

Isn't one of the reasons for having topographical data is so that one can view surface features from various angles?

Well all I did was look at a picture from a different angle and everyone acts like it's some sort of trickery or a hoax.


One last thing about the LRO images though. Check this out.
wms.lroc.asu.edu...

The caption to this image says:

Foreground is about 15 km wide, view is northeast across the north rim of Cabeus crater

So here is a image taken by LRO that clearly states North is not at the top.



Again I'm not saying it makes a difference to me, just pointing out that UP and NORTH aren't always the same... Not even in images from LRO

S&F

I just finish to read the thread.

Nice demonstration on how to change the subject from
"Crystal tower"
to
"where is the north"

Can you explain how you realise that the north is in the down ?
Do you have a more precise orientation angle of the picture ?

Yes, North matter on a picture/map.
It's the basis.

I will take more time to look your "crystal tower"

reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw


*snip* i was like "whoa crystal towers on the moon?! this is something right out of final fantasy 4!"
but nope. its a lie. nothing but landslides in some crater.



MOD Edit: Personal insult removed.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

[edit on December 28th 2009 by greeneyedleo]

weel, im just thinking

could it be ice on the camera lens on the LRO?

Originally posted by serbianxknight
weel, im just thinking

could it be ice on the camera lens on the LRO?

No...

It's a bunch of landslides

reply to post by Davidius
Agreed. I don't know how people can consider the quality of these images remotely usable.

The quality is beyond terrible.

Nobody knows if an image is that of a crater, of a mountain, much less if it is upside-down, or whatever.

The quality is that terrible.



[edit on 28-12-2009 by star in a jar]

Originally posted by star in a jar
reply to post by Davidius
Agreed. I don't know how people can consider the quality of these images remotely usable.
The quality is beyond terrible.

Actually, we should talk about "relative" quality: especially when it comes to orbital images, and when you have to map the whole Moon, and you have a limited budget, and you are doing it by using some probe which targets are mostly scientific, and you are seeking He-3, and you have to take care and get results from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera but also from:
Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation
Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment
Lyman-Alpha Mapping Project
Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector
Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter
Mini-RF

there are not many chances to achieve any spectacular results, especially if what you want to see is not there.
Of course, if the people keep on ignoring even Clementine images and keep on seeking "anomalies" in Lunar orbiter or Apollo mission's images, maybe the issue is in the observer, not in the images. Now, in order to call the quality of these images "terrible", you should use some parameter: show to us some comparison, for example: can you?
You cannot, trust me. These images are the BEST ones we have ever seen so far from the Moon, the lack of spectacle is due the fact that the target is not that spectacular, mate: rocks are rocks, that's the real issue.

Originally posted by chrisd250
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

ah yes, landslides....could possibly be landslides...i know here it takes quite a bit of rain to cause landslides, i wonder what would cause them on the moon?

the impact of meteorites causing the ground to shake, with moon soil dislodging and slowly rolling down embankments.

pile up dirt straight up, then throw a stone at the dirt pile, and watch how a little bit of the pile rolls downward.

reply to post by internos

Of course, if the people keep on ignoring even Clementine images and keep on seeking "anomalies" in Lunar orbiter or Apollo mission's images, maybe the issue is in the observer, not in the images. Now, in order to call the quality of these images "terrible", you should use some parameter: show to us some comparison, for example: can you? You cannot, trust me. These images are the BEST ones we have ever seen so far from the Moon, the lack of spectacle is due the fact that the target is not that spectacular, mate: rocks are rocks, that's the real issue.

Yes the BEST ones.
I like Rocks.




What do you means by ignoring Clementine Images ?
Do you have some interesting link ?

There's some interesting thread on ATS about anomalies on LRO images.
Just take a look.

For this thread, I don't see the interest to build a crystal Tower on the moon. Cause if there is no atmosphere, it's more clever to build underground.
No ?

[edit on 28-12-2009 by mixmix]