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.

 

Geological/Artificial Redundancies on Moon - Requesting Thoughts

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Hi ATS, this is my first thread on the forums and I would like your thoughts.

I've been doing some research in my spare time on some interesting irregularities I found on the Moon, using Google Earth.

Now before we jump to any conclusions, I will start off with saying that Google Earth isn't the greatest research tool, so I wanted to bring my findings before ATS and see what kind of ideas other minds come up with.

I hope you don't mind, but I've recorded some of the research on Youtube to show what I am referring to in detail. To explain before the video cut, I have found 49 redundancies that look very much like possible structures.

A brief video showing examples of the distances - available in 1080p.


A brief video giving basic example of redundancies in each feature.


The redundancies start at Lat: 28°11'32.41"N, Longitude: 17°28'49.72"W and seemingly end at Lat: 11°34'35.18"N, Longitude: 58°34'7.61"E and are spread out over 601.49 miles.

Whether or not they are actually geological features/artificial structures, or possible glitches in the layering of the images is where I feel ATS can come in to save the day.

Here are my findings, using the provided ruler on Google Earth - it may appear strange that it starts from 46 and goes to -2, but in how I was numbering these features they ended up listed like this to avoid confusion on my own part. 46 is the first redundancy found, starting from the west and going east ending in -2.

This is the distance from each feature to the next.

46: 44.68 miles
45: 22.52 miles
44: 22.49 miles
43: 22.46 miles
42: 22.47 miles
41: 22.46 miles
40: 22.83 miles
39: 44.66 miles
38: 22.22 miles
37: 22.54 miles
36: 22.20 miles
35: 22.14 miles
34: 22.14 miles
33: 22.00 miles
32: 22.62 miles
31: 21.41 miles
30: 43.59 miles
29: 22.00 miles
28: 44.50 miles
27: 22.48 miles
26: 22.19 miles
25: 22.55 miles
24: 22.27 miles
23: 66.93 miles
22: 22.60 miles
21: 45.09 miles
20: 21.95 miles
19: 21.86 miles
18: 22.02 miles
17: 21.84 miles
16: 21.91 miles
15: 21.56 miles
14: 22.04 miles
13: 23.75 miles
12: 72.12 miles
11: 23.35 miles
10: 23.58 miles
9: 23.65 miles
8: 23.85 miles
7: 23.77 miles
6: 23.95 miles
5: 23.20 miles
4: 46.38 miles
3: 23.98 miles
2: 23.88 miles
1: 71.39 miles
0: 23.72 miles
-1: 23.88 miles
-2: Fin

I tried to be as exact as possible with the measurements, starting from the middle of one feature to the next - please feel free to do the measurements as well if there is any concern over accuracy.

Thank you for your time.

- Fry




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Hello Fryaga,

Good work, and good eye for finding these equidistant ( almost
) thingies.

Do you know if Google uses scanned prints for their map? Because the objects are equidistant in relation to one another, and the fact that they also are equidistant to the border of the hi-res pictures makes me think it is some kind of dirt that was on the glass of the scanner.

I would have interrogations if they were scattered all over the place or making a shape of some sort.

BUT, did you notice the road next to the last one you pinned on your first video...? You can see it at 3:50.
On the right side of the "object", there is a continuous whitish "straight" line.

And welcome to ATS.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Fascinating study.
Makes one wonder how may features can be trusted in any so-called records of the surface of the Moon.

S+F from me.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Until we privatize space and send non-gov vehicles to the moon, we will never know.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
If you look closely each station is almost identical in shape and size and

in my opinion these are arrays of above ground pump stations or

multiple valve systems. A system of valves on Earth are 20 miles apart

when it comes to transporting natural gas. Usually a pump station is

from 50 to 200 miles apart on Earth and on average has a five mile road

to each station. This is my best guess. ^Y^

[edit on 30-6-2010 by amari]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Fryaga
 



That is one of the best things i have seen on ATS in a loooong time. Really.

You got my attention, that is for sure. Can you U2U yet? If not, let me know. I would recommend getting ArMaP involved. If Internos is still around (haven't seen him in a while). And of course, as always Phage. If you can stump Phage you have something worthy of real consideration.


If we can get Jim Oberg's input, that would be nice too.

Let me know. I will send some U2U's on your behalf if you would like.

Star and Flag. Way to make an entrance.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
A long time ago I saw an Apollo clip showing what looked like a 'discharge' from a vent. It almost looks like this could be the same...a tower with a near-by fallout patch.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree in theory that until the private sector gets up there we will never know. However it depends on what is found: If it is ONLY empty structures and monoliths then there is a good chance the lid will be blown wide open.

If there is technology then it'll be the same old same old.

Before my last HDD died I had a fantastic interview with a retiree from NASA who made it very clear in his interview that the entire lunar program is/was about archeology. He said that the entire surface of the Moon is litered with artifacts, but that real evidence would not be available until the public/amatuers got their hands on 18 inch (+) telescopes.

There is more going on up there then the public is told.

Lunacognita is a member here who has done some excellent work under the same name on YouTube (there are others whose work can be accessed through that name as well).

There are three people whose comments stick out for me...

Buzz Aldrin once said that (despite his friendships) he wished Apollo 13 would have been a total failure (he is one of many to claim that at no time has man ever been alone/unsupervised while in orbit). He is certain that the crew would not have been allowed to die.

Storey Musgrave has been one of the most outspoken of the new NASA; although there is no one comment from him (nor is there any direct reference either) if you listen to him talk you are left with no doubt that he has substantially more to say.

He uses comments like 'people are ready', 'it is an important question to be answered' etc.

The best of the best though is still Neil, and his best is from the 25th Anniversary (clip) of the Apollo 11 landing (full speech).

The conspiracy is not IF man went to the moon, the conspiracy is over what we FOUND there.

ETA...

I find it very interesting that in the past few weeks researchers went public that they had discovered a Lost Russian Rover (2nd Thread). What I find interesting is not that it was found but the photos that were released to support the find.

Very odd that the probe has a surface resolution of a couple inches and yet the best we can get is a tiny dot. Curious that with the US, Japanese and Indians (off the top of my head) doing ultra high resolution mapping of the moon that there are NO new images available.

S & F for a great post on my favorite topic

[edit on 30-6-2010 by [davinci]]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Aresh Troxit
 


Thank you for the reply, there are actually two that I've found so far next to what do appear to be roads.





I know they aren't actually roads, but interesting all the same.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Sorry for another post so soon, but I uploaded some images to share for further examination/example:

A short run of sequential order









Different images with what appears to be sharper details






- Fry



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   
The images used for the locations you selected come from the metric camera carried on Apollo 15. They were scanned at Arizona State University. What you have noticed is a bit of debris in the camera itself, not something on the surface of the Moon.

Subsequent analysis during image reprocessing has revealed that during the missions foreign debris are present in the optical path of the camera system and can be seen in the seen in the photographic exposures. Selected examples of blemish features of this type are shown in Figure 2. A movie showing blemish movement can be seen here. While the image processing steps undertaken as part of this effort might remove some of these blemish features, users should be aware that blemish features exist and take appropriate precautions.

apollo.sese.asu.edu...


The first one you found (28°11'32.41"N, 17°28'49.72"W) appears in AS15-M-1149. In the next image,AS15-M-1150, taken moments after that one, the object is no longer there.


Again, in a different location in AS15-M-1148, as compared to AS15-M-1149.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Huh. Well thank you for that, Phage - I expected there would be a quick, silent shot in the night on the research.

I guess the Google people didn't bother filtering out dirty images, since clean images are apparently available.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fryaga
reply to post by Phage
 


Huh. Well thank you for that, Phage - I expected there would be a quick, silent shot in the night on the research.

I guess the Google people didn't bother filtering out dirty images, since clean images are apparently available.


LOL, don't be surprised to see someone pop in eventually and say it was airbrushed out.


While i might normally agree, in this case i would say Phage nailed it. Again.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Damn, dude. Really.

Do you know what the lotto numbers are going to be?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I was going to leave this for dead, but I wanted to raise one question before letting it lie...

Did you notice the distances between each object? While the dirt on the images sounds reasonable, why would the dirt be so regularly spaced out and not more sporadic...as in, not in a very neat line and instead spread out over the entire area. Case in point, from example 13 to 12, there is a distance of 72.12 miles (give or take a few .01s), and the dirt keeps the same general appearance/shape.






I mean, this stuff here I can look at and see for certain that it is dirt:






And I have found other examples of different redundancies over the series of images from this particular fly over, but none matching the illusion of structure like the examples I based my research on. If you haven't already, I would suggest loading up Google Earth and examining this stuff as well - even if it is dirt, it is fascinating dirt.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fryaga
I was going to leave this for dead, but I wanted to raise one question before letting it lie...

Did you notice the distances between each object? While the dirt on the images sounds reasonable, why would the dirt be so regularly spaced out and not more sporadic...as in, not in a very neat line and instead spread out over the entire area. Case in point, from example 13 to 12, there is a distance of 72.12 miles (give or take a few .01s), and the dirt keeps the same general appearance/shape.






I mean, this stuff here I can look at and see for certain that it is dirt:






And I have found other examples of different redundancies over the series of images from this particular fly over, but none matching the illusion of structure like the examples I based my research on. If you haven't already, I would suggest loading up Google Earth and examining this stuff as well - even if it is dirt, it is fascinating dirt.


I would be interested in seeing the other redundancies.

And there may still be life in this story.

But consider that those images were processed on board the orbiter and transmitted back. The "plates" that were used, if they got dirt on them, would have that dirt look about the same in every frame, only smudged a little as each image is moved on and off the plates.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
The other redundancies are covered in the link provided by Phage, just odd that the one they didn't cover would be the one that looks so intriguing.

I'll say that artifact blemishes do in fact appear to be what has caused these, since I have no way of showing otherwise. Thanks again, Phage.

- Fry



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fryaga
The other redundancies are covered in the link provided by Phage, just odd that the one they didn't cover would be the one that looks so intriguing.

I'll say that artifact blemishes do in fact appear to be what has caused these, since I have no way of showing otherwise. Thanks again, Phage.

- Fry


go to the link in my signature. Check out the "Jack Arnesson" files there. And anything by Zorgon.

Zorgon...wish we still had you here. Aren't you done slaying dragons yet???



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Fryaga
 

The dirt appears in the same horizontal location in each of the individual images. When the images are stitched together, the dirt appears to be evenly spaced across the landscape.

BTW, in case you didn't find it, you can find the original scans here:
wms.lroc.asu.edu...

There are a lot of different examples. They only picked out a small sample of them.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 

These are not Lunar Orbiter images. They come from the Apollo missions. The film was returned to Earth.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well done sir, I was skeptical naturally but after reviewing some of the Apollo images you've provided, I see that your logic prevails.

Sorry for wasting your time, ATS - I'll try to be more thorough in future research.

- Fry



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join