It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Secrets of Schröteri Crater

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:46 AM
You're ignoring the physical size derived from you're very own pixel resolution. The mass of this thing clearly shows NASA or Russia doesn't have the heavy lift capabilities to put into space something this size. There is not one single heavy lift rocket on Earth that can house a fifty foot wide vehicle.

I understand reticulating components but we are also looking at something over 80 feet long and there isn't even a rocket stage that big, let alone a payload.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:54 AM
crashed water carrier.... meh

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:58 AM

Originally posted by Illustronic
You're ignoring the physical size derived from you're very own pixel resolution.

Who is?

And why do you assume this was a single launch operation? Is there some reason to chose a single-payload over multiple? I don't see one.

Also, you don't know the weight of the object, if it is an object at all. You don't know anything about it except how much space it takes up in this one image.

Frankly, we don't have enough data to say if it is artificial, or know its weight, or whether or not it is much smaller when collapsed.

It is either rocks or it is something else. That is all this image allows us to conclude about this feature.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:36 AM
reply to post by Exuberant1

Interesting...but then i find these anomalies the most interesting thing on ATS, so i would say that!

I don't remember exactly what video it was, so please don't ask for links or proof, but i remember seeing a video/movie, featuring Ex- military people who worked on covert projects and operations in the US.

One 'whistleblower' said that they were building an immense device, out in the desert (somewhere) it may have been Area 51, or one of those places. The guy said that when he said it was gigantic, he meant it.

They had to (apparently) fly in an aircraft, to get around it, it was that big (!), yet he was told it was destined to go into space.

The guy said what we all would say.."How the hell do they think they are going to get something *that* huge into space?!!"

He didn't say how they were going to do it, only that it was going.

I know this is sketchy, but maybe it might jog someone's memory, and they can identify the movie.

The point is, many people believe in a 'secret space' effort, using advanced technology including antigrav and other exotic technologies...perhaps this is evidence of this?

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:53 AM

Originally posted by JunoJive

Appears to me that the pattern of the 'void' space would place it underneath the object out of sight. The spacing is perfect.

Although it does appear more complex than a boulder, the fact there is a single unified trail would indicate this. If its not this I doubt its aliens. Probably NASA went through with Apollo 18 if anything.

The spacing is perfect indeed, I never argued that fact. However, if you look at the angle in which the "boulder" has come to rest, I think you will find that is not the angle it should have come to a rest at, judging by the pattern it has left. The pattern suggests that the object (assuming it rolled) went end-over-end, so the angle it has come to rest at should be more parallel than it is, no?

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:04 AM
reply to post by spikey

I think it was john Lear who first talked about the big thing that a guy needed to go in a plane to see.

Also, I'm happy that you enjoy these anomalies.

I spend so much time looking at the moon and I can tell you this isn't the only strange thing I've seen. Most of them I just file away or file away and then forget about but it is fun to share them every now and then.

In this case I sent the find to Zorgon and he decided that it was deserving of some attention; hence this awesome thread he made. With the anomaly, plus the name of the image and the fact that Apollo 18 was slated to land in the vicinity - this one has all the makings.

You guys almost didn't see this one.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:16 AM
What an interesting photo! It would be interesting to know the size of the object. The trail seems to blurry, and vanish at the end of the photograph. I would guess it's slow moving and had been there a long while. Did someone say the moon is over 5.3 billion years old? That's a long time for just about anything to happen to and on it. It is supposedly a billion years older than Earth, so I wonder where it was the first billion years....
edit on 17-2-2011 by frugal because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:16 AM
It looks like 3 dead astronauts in a moon buggy flipped over on it's side with a parabolic antenna up front.
The again, the human mind has the ability to attempt to add form to whatever is seen.

The irregular trail with round markings depicts what would be left by an irregular shaped object rolling down an incline.

Would really like to see a better quality picture of this area.

I played with the image here in Photoshop and no matter what I tried, there was no way to improve visual acuity of the image. The detail just isn't there.

Fabulous picture, IMHO this is not a bunch of rocks,
but a complex structure of some kind.

edit on 17/2/11 by Donegal_TDI because: To attempt to add image

edit on 17/2/11 by Donegal_TDI because: typo

edit on 17/2/11 by Donegal_TDI because: typo

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by Donegal_TDI

That's really good! I can in (IMHO) actually make out what the structures resemble to me. (or rocks depending on who is looking at it.) Thanks for that!!

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:49 PM
reply to post by spikey

That was John Lear
He spoke to an insider who described the huge bucket wheel excavator slated for the Moon. It was apparently built on Earth and even the insider had no idea where the machine went after completion and he had no idea how they would have got it up there, This was 1990. We did phone several companies involved in making and testing equipment for mining on the moon and mars... got some interesting replies. Lunar and Planetary Institute and the Colorado School of mines have literally hundreds of documents on off world mining.

Here is a sample

Here is a photo of a huge trencher. This one is in Europe. Now ask yourself why does NASA have this image on their Astronomy Picture of the Day" site? And why did they title this anomaly as "Secrets of Schröteri"?

A Bucket-Wheel Excavator on Earth
Credit: ThyssenKrupp Technologies,

Explanation: Please wait while one of the largest mobile machines in the world crosses the road. The machine pictured above is a bucket-wheel excavator used in modern surface mining. Machines like this have given humanity the ability to mine minerals and change the face of planet Earth in new and dramatic ways. Some open pit mines, for example, are visible from orbit. The largest excavators are over 200 meters long and 100 meters high, now dwarfing the huge NASA Crawler that transports space shuttles to the launch pads. Bucket-wheel excavators can dig a hole the length of a football field to over 25 meters deep in a single day. They may take a while to cross a road, though, with a top speed under one kilometer per hour.

This is a Model of NASA's robot controlled Lunar Excavator.

As to how they get it up there... well everyone
on ATS is convinced that the huge TR3-B exists. If that is true, then we have that anti gravity drive and thus heavy lift capability. So just where do they park these TR3-B's?

Odd coincidence that the first sighting of the big triangle was in Belgium in the UFO flap of 1990. So this huge machine that John was told about was completed in 1990 and we have huge triangle sighted in 1990.

ThyssenKrupp, the manufacturer of these huge machines just happens to be in Belgium;

The local subsidiary with the highest sales is ThyssenKrupp Materials Belgium N.V. / S.A. o


Maybe this one is returning from a drop
The capture was made by someone who works at Palmdale

Taken 01/12/1986

edit on 17-2-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:13 PM
Based on the approx. estimated size of the object given in this thread of 25m x 15m (roughly the size of an NBA basketball court), we can estimate (based on the shadows) that some of these individual "rocks" are 3 - 5 m tall, maybe taller.
edit on 17-2-2011 by FOXMULDER147 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:49 PM
reply to post by Illustronic

What is the obsession with size? Just because we haven't seen a public mission with a rover that's 25x17m, why does that mean such a machine couldn't be built? This is a simply ridiculous argument which is being rehashed time and again. We could build a rover that size, even with current materials and payload restrictions, by taking it up bit by bit - as a modular construction. But the point is, this is a MOON ANOMALY image. We all know that speculation concerning 'other interested parties' on the moon is rife - and 'they' may not care twopence for our preconceived notions of how big a rover must be...

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:00 PM

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are

After applying one of Topic Labs effects in Photoshop (Topaz Simplify 2 ***Cartoon*** effect, which basically boosts the image details and their strength) to the zoomed imaged above, an artifact, strangely, can be depicted, almost as if a brush was used to point out something in that area.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:28 PM
Zorgon I have a book on the Bucket wheel Excavators.That BWE is the Krupp 288 and as big as it is is smaller than the Bagger 293, which is almost 315 ft high and about 739 ft long and the wheel is 70 feet in diameter. The BWE's we use here in the US are smaller and at one point had to have special nose projections put on each bucket to limit the size of rocks that could be removed. The original designs were for soft sandier soil and the US has harder rockier deposits.
Those are just fascinating machines.
edit on 17-2-2011 by ellieN because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-2-2011 by ellieN because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:30 PM
There are a number of things that can definitely be interpreted from the image:

a) If the object rolled ( and did not slide ) it was not uniform in shape with about one half of it being narrower at the rolling edge (so that it cut into the ground more to create the 'sloughing' at the side of the trench. Since the sloughing (I am fairly confident that is NOT what what are seeing but for the sake of argument...if that is what we are seeing in that odd track) is only on one side this may indicate that the object was heavier on the "left" which would cause it to undercut the right side of the trench when the heavier/thicker bit was on top)

b) The weight OR INERTIA of the object is great enough to have cut a furrow deep so the ground surface layer must be fairly soft and thick-probably very like snow given the light gravity.

c)Given a natural object that has enough momentum and size to push all that dirt out of it's way and would have appeared to be rolling when doing so, and then simply (presumably at the bottom of a VERY SOFT AND THICK LAYER OF SOIL) break apart in such odd shapes it is surprising that more debris was not flying off such an obviously structurally challenged object during it's down hill tumble. Leading to the question Why would the 'rock' break at the bottom at all?

d) In the larger image the debris field that the object apparently came from looks as though it was created by a nearly tangential impact in the ridge 'rill' breaking it's s-curve and creating a kind of collapsed dome(kind of c-shaped) looking mound (i.e an impactor came in from the 'top' of the strip nearly parallel with the moons surface and impacted the side of the ridge at a very low altitude ) this could have created a condition wherein a large object could be left overhanging (as seen elsewhere on the moon), but fails to explain no good 'starting' point impression, hole or crag for our weird little wander.

e) The object was clearly 'bouncing' or 'skipping' a bit at first as the track has obvious dips in it, and once it starts to roll (presumably) it very much appears that it would roll about half way over then a large protrusion sticking out the side would catch (creating the repeating off center pattern) and transfer some of the weight off the center track but still along the center of gravity for about 1/3 to 1/2 a turn. Oddly some dirt is dropped back into the main track which would seem to indicate an articulated protrusion hits gets stuck acts like a pole vault lever flipping the center of mass forward and then gets pulled after it until the next time it rotates around.

This indicates a protrusion strong enough to flip the object forward but light enough to keep from pulling it off center line. It also gives a us a mechanism for the 'break-up' of the 'rock' as the protrusion being a lever is going to have a high likely hood of failure being of lower mass than the rest of the object and thus the most prone to breakage or failure and in the pattern of the objects path we see just that...the object came to rest at a spot right where the next 'curve' in the path would have been predicted, so we can assume that the thing making the curve pattern broke off and stopped the show like jamming a two-by-four into the ground as you run forward.

F) This one is HARD to beat down: nature generally likes fractals, it does not like clean geometric shapes , it especially doesn't like repeated clean geometric shapes, especially in systems as highly chaotic as giant tumbling boulders smashing to smithereens, but in the image we CLEARLY have two cylindrical objects that also appear to be hollow tubes ( roughly 5 feet in interior diameter ) sitting neatly placed nearly vertically right in the heart of a broken 'rock'. What are those things?How where they made? and how did seemingly hollow tubes (thick though they may be ) survive tumbling down a hillside to land side by side upright in the image ?

I once had the odd opportunity to watch a backhoe operator tumble down a soft but steep hillside ( it was in a sudden rain storm on a dirt road that collapsed under it when the driver got to near the edge ) the boom arm on the backhoe twisted around and under pretty wildly as the thing tumbled about 200 feet down hill the track it left in the mud was very similar , including the fact that it appeared to have no starting point as the ground had collapsed with it to start with.

The problem is that NASA and JPL are still NASA and JPL and the LROC site is more of the same ( crap images of all the apollo sites and odd, to say the least, resolution choices for various targets, etcetcetc), in other words the same old obfuscating bastards whom cannot be trusted to hold your ice cream cone while you tie your shoe and this image practically leaps at the viewer ( if the name wasn't enough how about the fact that it was almost exactly centered in the LROC strip) . If it's an natural object it is a very odd one, and I challenge anyone to explain those cylinders, but perhaps that's the hook...

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by spikey

What the heck were they building, Battle Star Galactica?

Wouldn't it be easier to build something like that in space?

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:27 PM
In late Oct 2004 during a full moon I witnessed two black dots orbiting the moon this happened on consecutive nights at about 9:30 PM. I assumed that this was something that was supposed to be there orbiting. I also thought that maybe this was one object and the other was a shadow. These objects traveled in a straight line passing the bright side in approx. 1.5 minutes and disappearing over the horizon and reappearing in its original starting point. I researched the internet quite thoroughly and could find nothing, this was also at a time while the shuttle was grounded due to the crash over Texas. I subsequently contacted by email, several prominent astronomers. The replies that I received said that they know of nothing currently orbiting the moon and that anything up there you would not be able to see in 5 inch (130mm) telescope. It was at this time that I realized that we are not being told many things. I'm also sure that much of the mystery of the moon we will never figure out.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:00 PM
Ok, so if this thing is 15M x 25M, then the hop along trail left by this cowboy and his kid is 5-10 meters wide, and probably 5M deep, or in U.S. terms, 15- 30 feet wide by 15 feet deep. That is a whole lot of displaced moon dust.

If this thing was at the bottom of a giant cliff, I could go with the rolling rock theory, but on this slightly sloping hill, no way, unless it was kicked by an even more giant cowboy. The size we are talking about also pretty much eliminates the Death Valley moving rocks concept as well. We should see more of this, if this kind of effect is happening on the moon. There would have to be meters deep ice formations, and I think that would have been noticed. Rocks are heavy even on the moon, and it would take a whole lot of force to roll some huge boulders like these.

Also to note, from the shadows it appears to be casting, this thing is very tall, like maybe 20M tall, or 65 ft.. If that black area to the upper left is all shadow, then it must be pretty tall, because the shadow angle seems to be about 45 degrees. The cowboy hat doesn't look like a shadow to me. On second thought, maybe it is Paul Bunyan, and he is holding his famous ax in his right hand.

How in the heck could you get a tall rock formation that left a trail like this?

I wonder if NASA has any more pictures of this area. Is this thing fixed in place, or has it moved on?

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:23 PM
reply to post by zorgon

Unfortunately I couldn't get real measurements, I think I need to update the software and related camera data.

I could only pixel measurements, and they are something like 28 by 17, which, at a resolution of 0.695
metres per pixel means 19.46 by 11.81 metres.

The light was shining down at a 28.85º angle above the horizon, so the 8 pixels (5.5 metres) shadow to the left of the objects comes from a 4.4 pixels (3 metres) high object.

As for the shapes, as expected, the original photo doesn't show any cylinders or even round objects (there's not enough resolution for that), the round shapes are a result of the resizing of the image.

This is what the original, at 100% zoom, looks like.

And this is resized to 400% but without resampling, so the pixels remain square, without "guesses" from the imaging program.

Even if they are rocks, (and I think they are, I don't have any reason to think they are anything else) the way they are all grouped is, at least, unusual.

Nice find, exuberant1.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:35 PM
reply to post by ArMaP

just curious, what do you think about the trail? its almost like a pattern?

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in