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.

 

NASA Moon Anomalies III - Other Peoples Work

page: 14
36
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   
another moondanity


The tower



Resolution: 0.485 m/Pixel
Sun angle: evaluate to 6.82° ???
Shadow length: 270m
Tower height => 32m



Second tower



Resolution : 0.486 m/pixel
Sun angle: 6.82
Rim angle ???
Shadow length: 106m
Minimum tower heigth: 12.6


To check


[edit on 1-1-2010 by mixmix]




posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Here you have your "sickle" in higher resolution.

(click for full size)



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Being that it disappeared - perhaps the rocket was either edited out or it took off, which would explain the obscuration of the tracks. These are the only two conclusions that a reasonable person would come to.

I don't know if I am reasonable or not, but I can think of other possibilities.


The blue "rocket" looks like the other blue spots that are relatively common on Apollo photos (and for which I don't have an explanation), so if it was one of those that could explain why we cannot see it on the second photo.

The "obscuration" of the tracks does not not look like obscuration, it looks like the camera was slightly shaken vertically while the photo was taken, all objects look elongated vertically, so the horizontal features would be blurred with the rest of the scene. This is easier to confirm, if that photo has more horizontal features they should have suffered the same blurring.

Edit: on the left side of that first photo there is another blue spot, more or less the same size and shape of the rocket.


[edit on 1/1/2010 by ArMaP]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
... all objects look elongated vertically, so the horizontal features would be blurred with the rest of the scene. This is easier to confirm, if that photo has more horizontal features they should have suffered the same blurring.



Here is a randomly selected cropping from the same image so that the members can judge for themselves whether or not they thinks "all objects look elongated vertically":






Fellow members,

Let me know if you see anymore of these objects. Some would have you think they are common blue spots, but I bet this is the first blue-rocket object you've ever seen seen on the moon.

No debunker has posted any image of any other such blue rocket-anomaly on the surface of the moon - so I can say that blue rocket-like objects such as this are not common sights in Apollo images. Also, objects known as the "peekaboos" or blue flares such as in the 'Mitchell Under Glass' photo do not look like this:







Here is an example of a common blue image error such as can be found in the 'Mitchell Under Glass image' (and other Apollo images). *Note its dissimilarity to the blue rocket-like object discovered by Majorion and his sidekick; my lesser sibling :


(From as12-66-9345)



*You may find more rocket-like objects like this in the Tsiolkovsky area - along with some other interesting anomalies which some associate with lunar mining operations. This area is ripe with anomalies of all sorts. Post 'em as you find 'em
=







[edit on 1-1-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I've posted this a couple of times on here and it hasn't excited anyone. However, I find the (arrowed) square flat stone fascinating (about 50m long). Mind you, I find the whole area south of this screen grab very odd as most of the craters have single or double "eyes." I don't think you can see the one on the bottom right when it's embedded on the thread, so I've embedded it as a second photo below.




Sorry if this is nothing, but it gets me going every time I look at it.

[edit on 1/1/2010 by nomadros]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by nomadros
 

That's an interesting find, but Google Earth (or its Moon or Mars versions) its not the best source for good photos.

I will look for the original Jaxa image.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Let me know if you see anymore of these objects. Some would have you think they are common blue spots, but I bet this is the first blue-rocket object you've ever seen seen on the moon.
Did you saw my edit on that post?

There's another blue "thingy" on that photo.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

There's another blue "thingy" on that photo.



I saw your edit.

It doesn't look like the blue rocket-like object - but it is blue.


This statement which you made is not accurate:



more or less the same size and shape of the rocket.




*The other members will be able to compare my brother's blue rocket-like object with your find and then they can judge the accuracy of your statement for themselves.


Edit- To make it Easier for them:









[edit on 1-1-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Hey Fellas


So there I was looking through some Apollo images after visiting Hoagland's site were I saw this - He says it is a glass structure on Moon:




....Well how many glass structures do you know that can Fly?





And WTF is this? A Massive Prince Rupert's Drop? Or just some cheap glue with bubbles in it?




Here is another version of the image - It sucks:





*Edit: for Guessing Game with no image context (Armap, sit this one out)


Is it A Flying Saucer UFO or a Moon Crater...??





Guess Now!


Later will be too late! You don't wanna miss your 50/50 Chance to be Right!







[edit on 1-1-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
This statement which you made is not accurate:



more or less the same size and shape of the rocket.
You're right, the size doesn't match. It looks like I was looking at a 200% zoom of my blue "thing" and at a 100% zoom of the "rocket".



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
And WTF is this? A Massive Prince Rupert's Drop? Or just some cheap glue with bubbles in it?


dang......


thats your lunar spermy........


Originally posted by Exuberant1
....Well how many glass structures do you know that can Fly?



looking for eggy..... which is riding da lunatmospheric waves....




posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by nomadros
 

Here you have that area from the original image from Jaxa, with brightness levels automatically adjusted in Photoshop.

(click for full size, 7 metres per pixel version)


PS: I noticed that the Google image you posted was in "perspective", making it even less closer to the real image than it should. That way Google Earth creates even more artefacts.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

Many thanks for taking the time to dig this out and I now see the error of my ways. I've done a composite to show others how artefacts can be created by Google Moon. I'll never use it again.
Top pic is from ArMaP's original, middle is Google moon from about the same elevation and the bottom is a zoom in on the "moonbase."




I tried using the Kayuga 3D app, but as it was written in Java by scientists, it doesn't work too well.


Oh ArMaP, you don't have the Jaxa picture ID do you, so I can have a butchers myself?

[edit on 1/1/2010 by nomadros]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Moon hole might be suitable for colony
January 1, 2010 1:03 p.m. EST

www.cnn.com...

*Isn't this old news? Why are they digging this up again now? Makes you wonder huh?



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by nomadros
 

The photo's ID is TC_EVE_02_N33E147N30E150SC.

I got the photo from the SELENE data archive, but you have to register, choose the instrument from which you want the data, choose the coordinates of the area you want that data from, and then they send you a link to download the image. The image is in a compressed (gzip) file, in a format that, as far as I know, can only be read by a free USGS suite of programs, ISIS, that runs only on Unix or Unix-based systems.

To make things easier, you can just click here and click the "Download" link below the photo.

As you can see, the photo is split in two parts, and the left side is on the right side of the photo and vice-versa, I don't know why.

Another thing, this photo does not show exactly the same area as the image on Google Earth (Moon), this is a little more to the north, so the area you posted is not on the top of the image but on the middle.

Edit: another thing, there are some white and black pixels on the photo, I think those are pixels in which the sensor was overloaded, usualy there's a list or other method of identifying those "out of range" pixels.

[edit on 1/1/2010 by ArMaP]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Here you have your "sickle" in higher resolution.

(click for full size)


It's one hell of an illusion and better than most if not all of the offerings by others. It's amazing how a land mass will form itself to resemble a human-constructed shape, at low resolution. It's pareidolia at its best. But when I saw it back in the early '80s, it was the only real lunar "anomaly" I had found. I never fooled myself into thinking that it was no more than an illusion. Thanks for the high-res.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
some new images ...

the wall




The pyramid valley




posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mixmix
 

Regardless of your intentions, I think you should identify the photos from where you got those images.

As far as we know you may be creating those with Windows Paint.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


completly right.
The file sources are in the comment of "My pictures" section for each picture I stored.


the sheriff star crater

from LRO M102781689LE.IMG with modified brightness and contrast.

Which one is insteresting you ?



[edit on 2-1-2010 by mixmix]

[edit on 2-1-2010 by mixmix]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mixmix
 

None in particular, I always think it's best to post the ID with the photos.

Although having the photo's ID on your "My pictures" section helps, it would be easier if people wouldn't had to go to the Media portal, select the right user and then look at your "My pictures" section.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join