The "Tower" anomaly in Pythagoras Moon Crater by Kaguya/JAXA

reply to post by Imagir


Since the moon is mostly basalt it would be unusual to not find such shapes in structures there. As to the narrow antenna shape, when a meteor slams into rock, you would get all kinds of shapes and if you search I'm sure you will find other similar features.

Don't misunderstand me. I'd be thrilled to click on a thread here and see indisputable evidence of a structure on the Moon or Mars. I'm just trying to temper my enthusiasm with common sense and use whatever knowledge I have in coming to conclusions. I'm not criticizing but instead giving a critique.

Originally posted by Anamnesis
I'm familiar w/natural Pyramid shaped formations here on Terra but again, those are formed by wind erosion mostly...

Fault Block

All sorts of angular formations are possible for many reasons. Gravity and chemical errosion are also very powerful forces.

The picture below is an example of Fault Block showing multiple angular and pyramid shapes.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c338afe4fdb9.jpg[/atsimg]

These were not formed by erosion but in the faulting process. When young, before the natural erosion from ice, wind, water and gravity these would have been extremely angular and yet very natural.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Thank you for your input.

These threads are getting very tiresome. I signed up to say that. That's how tiresome they have become. More mad leaps of the imagination that refuse to reason with the facts.

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by Extralien


I'm quite amazed by this structure.. ok, it might be possible that it formed naturally, as crystyals do...but if so, that's one big crystal.

It not only "might be" natural it is nearly certain it is natural.

I don't get your crystals reference and I've collected and studied mineral specimens since the age of 9, including taking numerous University level courses in Geology. Blocky forms in natural formations are extremely common, particularly in Basalts. There is nothing unusual in this photo no matter how much you wish there were. Making the evidence fit the theory is practiced way to often on this topic, cheapening it.

Also the sun angle on this is clearly very steep, so if that "antenna" is on the edge of a slope it could actually be very short. Shadows are not hard to understand if a person wants to understand them.

The graphic below shows 11 identical cylinders. The light angle is not even very steep and yet you see the difference in shadow lengths depending on the slope the shadow is cast upon.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ddb62f01db87.jpg[/atsimg]

This picture with the cylinders is OBVIOUSLY faked. Look at them lol.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by Blender]

reply to post by Imagir


S&F Imagir.

Nice find.
But I don't think the tower shadow come from the red highligth you put in the zoomed part but
from the white dot on the axis of the shadow.
but it's still a tower or antenna if you want.

I highlight shadows in green. Perhap's a second tower


On a flat surface:
Height of tower = LengthOfShadow x tan (sunAngle)

But here, it's not flat.

Have you look anaxagoras crater ?


[edit on 29-1-2010 by mixmix]

I think it's possible that the thing casting that long thin shadow is on top of that mountain rather than on the bottom, as you have shown

...such as indicated in the photo below (where I marked "This" in yellow). The object I'm talking about is sticking up above the mountain a bit, hence the reason that the top of it is sunlit, while its surroundings are in shadow. By looking at the the direction of the shadows (as I indicated in blue), I think this is possibly the object casting the thin shadow:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5bd10636736e.jpg[/atsimg]

EDIT:
I see mixmix beat me to it! My photoshopping ability is slow.


[edit on 1/29/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by mixmix


Thanks mixmix.

Anaxagoras crater?
I saw something strange in Tycho Crater www.abovetopsecret.com... and Fra Mauro Highlands www.abovetopsecret.com... or near the Apollo 17 landing site... www.abovetopsecret.com...
What about Anaxagoras Crater? What do you saw?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Good point well made will look at the images at the site to see what resolution its taken at.

Riddle me this...How is it that waaay back in the late 60s and early 70s, the cameras the Astronauts used seem to take better and more detailed images as apposed to these HD images. I understand that the images are from an orbiting spacecraft, but you'd think we might see a little more detail. We know there are rocks everywhere because we have seen them before, right? I mean look at the pictures from the craft...The ground in some of them looks like Mud. Stick to you shoes Mud!

JJ

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Imagir

 

Since the moon is mostly basalt it would be unusual to not find such shapes in structures there. As to the narrow antenna shape, when a meteor slams into rock, you would get all kinds of shapes and if you search I'm sure you will find other similar features.

Don't misunderstand me. I'd be thrilled to click on a thread here and see indisputable evidence of a structure on the Moon or Mars. I'm just trying to temper my enthusiasm with common sense and use whatever knowledge I have in coming to conclusions. I'm not criticizing but instead giving a critique.

True Science needs to be viewed with an un-bias mind, good call on keeping ones enthusiasm in check. I think everyone here can agree that what they would all love to have is "Proof". I myself watch the sky everynight. I really want to see the Interstellar Left hand turn. But I digress, The moon has always been something of our great TV in the sky the Chinese called it the mirror of the sky for centuries, However I would like to bring up that the chinese and a few other "Ancient" cultures claimed to have been to the moon even giving somewhat accurate description as to its landscape, the Chinese even having a legend of a sister "Forbidden city" built there. Know this gets into the "we have been here before" theory our Civilization rising to technology and destroying itself again and again. Im not saying that it isnt a natural formation, in fact I would be surprised if we ever do go back and find construction there. But the moon ran our imagination and made us reach for the stars, to move forward with science, and after we got taht goal it is only natural that our imagination continue to run, to persue greater science and continue to move forward. Great find OP S&F!!!

[edit on 28/01/10 by TacticalVeritas]

[edit on 28/01/10 by TacticalVeritas]

I'm quite surprised nobody has mentioned stalagmites yet...



These are very common where there is moisture obviously and exist where water drops down eroding something to create a stalactite and respective stalagmite... but in a zero gravity atmosphere moisture obviously moves in the opposite direction if enough force (i.e. evaporation) occurs?

Originally posted by JustJoe
Riddle me this...How is it that waaay back in the late 60s and early 70s, the cameras the Astronauts used seem to take better and more detailed images as apposed to these HD images. I understand that the images are from an orbiting spacecraft, but you'd think we might see a little more detail. We know there are rocks everywhere because we have seen them before, right? I mean look at the pictures from the craft...The ground in some of them looks like Mud. Stick to you shoes Mud!

JJ

Its down to resolution the lro pics can be 0.5 mtr per pixel iirc so the apollo lander at about 15ft across is only a few pixels across hope this helps.

reply to post by Terric


I believe that has been discussed actually, The only external effects the moon would have on it, since there is no atmosphere, is Solar events and object collision, if water was moving and in a form conducive to fluid erosion, then yes, also I should say Stactites and stalagmites need to be formed in tandem i.e. water drips from ceiling to floor.

reply to post by Terric


I believe that has been discussed actually, The only external effects the moon would have on it, since there is no atmosphere, is Solar events and object collision, if water was moving and in a form conducive to fluid erosion, then yes, also I should say Stalactites and stalagmites need to be formed in tandem i.e. water drips from ceiling to floor.

[edit on 28/01/10 by TacticalVeritas]

I own that part of the moon. It's up for sale if anyone is interested in buying it from me.





Some People will believe almost anything....Why?

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by Anamnesis
I'm familiar w/natural Pyramid shaped formations here on Terra but again, those are formed by wind erosion mostly...

Fault Block

All sorts of angular formations are possible for many reasons. Gravity and chemical errosion are also very powerful forces.

The picture below is an example of Fault Block showing multiple angular and pyramid shapes.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c338afe4fdb9.jpg[/atsimg]

These were not formed by erosion but in the faulting process. When young, before the natural erosion from ice, wind, water and gravity these would have been extremely angular and yet very natural.

Totally agree with the fact that angulars are formed by other means but there's no known plate tectonic activity on the Moon that would create a fault thrust....

regardless. ...the towers are more anomalous IMHO.



[edit on 29-1-2010 by Anamnesis]

reply to post by mixmix

Thanks mixmix (you too Soylent Green Is People) you saved me the time from having to point that out. Nice work by the way.

However, even though we've now identified the location of the tower-like structure as being on the ridge of that hill/mountain, I still have no idea what it is. It appears to be perfectly vertical. I agree with what others have said that it couldn't be "wind/water erosion" as there is none of that on the moon. It can't be a stalagmite as it's obviously not in a cave.

Very strange indeed.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by harrytuttle]

Its interesting that here we are discussing a pyramid and what could be an obelisk. Both were originally attributed to the egyptians and not the Greeks as was believed.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Obelisks were prominent in the architecture of the ancient Egyptians, who placed them in pairs at the entrance of temples. The word "obelisk" as used in English today is of Greek rather than Egyptian origin because Herodotus, the Greek traveller, was one of the first classical writers to describe the objects. Twenty-nine ancient Egyptian obelisks are known to have survived"

So maybe there is a reason for both anomolies to be in the moon pic, even more interesting would be finding another tower close by, as per the "pairs".


Respects

[edit on 29-1-2010 by captiva]

reply to post by Imagir


G'day Imagir

These moon anamoly threads are always a "mine field".....

.....or should I say "moon field"

These images can be very difficult to verify & interpret, as per some of the interesting info that has already been posted in your thread by knowledgeable members.

I hope some of the ATS "moon heavyweights" such as Armap also jump in with some of their expertise.

Ex1 & WZN might even be around......they always liven things up in these moon threads!

I always enjoy these moon discussions, so thanks for posting your info.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 29-1-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by Anamnesis
Totally agree with the fact that angulars are formed by other means but there's no known plate tectonic activity on the Moon that would create a fault thrust....

If you listen to the narration of the video as it passes over that area of the "pyramid/obelisk", you'll hear the guy state that this is the center of the impact crater. Impact craters undergo shock metamorphic effects which sometimes result in shatter cones and central peak uplift, as we see in this video.

So that provides more than enough cause for the cone/pyramid shaped profile shadow we see.

However, I do agree that the tower-like structure is anomalous.


[edit on 29-1-2010 by harrytuttle]