The Secrets of Schröteri Crater

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment

OK, so they could, but why would anyone want to build a rover the size of a basketball court...?

Rover's are built for mobility!

reply to post by aceace

Recently..I moved to an old house. In the attic was a treasure of telescope lenses. All sizes and two Barlow lenses. One ..is a 2X and the other is a 15X!! I am anxious to get my telescope out of storage and try this 15X out. Maybe I can actually see something with it. I'm going to have to clean it and recalibrate it though.
Once..I thought I saw something on the edge of Aristoteles...but like you that can't be confirmed. It looked like a bunched up worm and looked as if it moved. I kept looking and it didn't move again. I can't be sure it ever moved. Just that it looked odd.

reply to post by Aggie Man


The only good thing about your "boulders" theory is that it makes for a good name for a rock band! You know, "The Rolling Moon Rocks"

You sound like you desperately don't want to believe or think that NASA and TPTB could be keeping secrets or that there is much more to the moon than it just being a desolate empty lump of rock. But I guess thats what debunking is all about.

I have to agree with the guy who mentioned the high resolution photographs of deep space and the crap black n white ones we get from NASA. Something is not right no matter what your view is. If you can't Feel it then there's not much hope for you my friend. No offence meant of course.

reply to post by ziggyproductions05


I think it's just a trail made by a rolling rock.

Originally posted by 1mabeliever
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

You sound like you desperately don't want to believe or think that NASA and TPTB could be keeping secrets or that there is much more to the moon than it just being a desolate empty lump of rock. But I guess thats what debunking is all about.

Desperately? Debunking? I'm sorry, I thought the OP presented an anomaly to discuss. I have provided input as to what I believe it to be. I have not attempted to debunk anything, nor am I desperate to do so.

I think I may finally be a true member of ATS...after 2 1/2 years of membership I have finally been called a debunker

reply to post by ArMaP


Um, a rock possibly twenty meters wide, 5 meters or less thick considering the shadow, and three meters high?

Just how did this boulder roll more than a 100 meters on relatively flat ground, creating a ditch 5-10 meters wide, and deep enough to create a shadow visible from space. It doesn't look very round, and that is one strange ditch pattern.

I would have to say that is extremely unlikely that a rolling rock created this trail, and that if this is a rock at the end of the trail, its appearance is very different from surrounding rocks.

reply to post by Aggie Man


Congratulations! Glad I could help

However, I do apologise. I didn't mean to cause offence. I really need to choose my words more carefully. My bad.

Although the original photo in the OP is typically lacking in detail, I just don't see how it could resemble a boulder.

My personal opinion is that it is metalic in nature and has probably moved under its own propulsion.

The question is: if it's a rolling rock, why is it the only one? Why are there not numerous tracks in that area?

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I'm sorry, I thought the OP presented an anomaly to discuss.

I did... indeed I did

I think I may finally be a true member of ATS...after 2 1/2 years of membership I have finally been called a debunker

No you are only at the first level... you also need to be called a disinfo agent as well. I got a lot of that and worse in the Jerusalem UFO hoax threads

Originally posted by poet1b
Um, a rock possibly twenty meters wide, 5 meters or less thick considering the shadow, and three meters high?

Just how did this boulder roll more than a 100 meters on relatively flat ground, creating a ditch 5-10 meters wide, and deep enough to create a shadow visible from space. It doesn't look very round, and that is one strange ditch pattern.

Must have been the Moon Storms that moved it... I saw someone point to the Moving Rocks of Death Valley as proof... so seems likely if they are rocks then it must be NASA's raging Moon Storms that did it.

Funny though for decades people called astronomers who reported seeing clouds on the moon crazy... yet all along NASA has been recording those sightings... their log dates back to 1554

Moon Storms I didn't make this up
science.nasa.gov...

Moon Fountains... sunset/sunrise rays on the moon due to dust in the atmosphere
science.nasa.gov...

I LOVE NASA they provide so much amusement with their double talk

reply to post by FOXMULDER147


I wondered the same thing! Why was this the only one that decided to roll and not break up more as it rolled down and go SPLAT at the bottom. Must have hit with some very strange hard force at the bottom to do that.! And is the terrain a lot steeper than it looks to cause such a break-up where it landed. I can understand that if it fell off of a cliff. So as it started to roll, why did it not cause other smaller boulders to not be moved.

reply to post by ellieN

Why was this the only one that decided to roll and not break up more as it rolled down and go SPLAT at the bottom.

Perhaps because it was assembled from THESE?:





Or, the Transformers robot....needs a new power cell???
____________________________________________________________________
But, on a serious note....could it just have been a very large igneous boulder, and thus maybe a bit fragile?

Honeycombed with internal voids and fractures?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Now that was funny! Really..I actually laughed.
So..I get it now. That made sense, the boulder is made of stuff that couldn't stand the stress and just finally gave up rolling.. LOL..

Just because it doesn't look anything like a "boulder" doesn't mean it isn't one...

Originally posted by Aggie Man
My best guess is that the image shows a boulder that was dislodged and tumbled a bit, leaving an odd trail in the fine, loose soil of the lunar surface.

Cool image though!

That makes sense but I thought the moon was dead. No molten core, no seismic activity? Could have been a meteor strike caused the rock to move down the hill?

Ditch digging equipment on a NASA site? I'm still trying to figure out what the big deal is with the Las Vegas aquaduct. In one of the old James Bond movies they had footage from the 50's where they were out in the desert with one of those big rotary shovels building the aquaduct. They buried Bond in one of the sections of the pipeline and he had to follow a desert rat to get out. The aerial photographs of the area show some interesting anomalies but if you research the history all you find is an old abandoned gunnery range?

@ Zorgon

I sent you a U2U regarding a potential explanation for the unusual trail created by the artifact.
You haven't commented on it so I may as well present it here for general consumption.



Ok, everyone has been looking at the track in the lunar regolith from the perspective of having been created by something akin to a rock or boulder tumbling or rolling down a gradient or slope.

However, there is a much more "cleaner and satisfying" explanation for the track creation. Occam's razor certainly would be satisfied as well as lending credence and weight to the hypothesis that it's a manufactured artifact ... hence, artificial.

Lets start at the beginning of the track and position the artifact so it's facing photographic north, ie. towards the top of the image.

1. Now, let the artifact move forward (northwards) x amount of meters.
Now the artifact stops and executes a clockwise turn of 90 degrees so it's facing photographic "east". This turn is executed on "the spot".
2. At some point later in time, the artifact executes an anti-clockwise turn of 90 degrees, thereby resuming it's original north facing direction.
3. The artifact moves forward x amount of meters.

Now repeat steps 1, 2 and 3 multiple times and what do you see in the regolith afterwards ? exactly the pattern observed in the photo. !

Take a look at the following image to give you a better understanding of what I'm on about.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3663dbd9121.jpg[/atsimg]

So, we have a very simple explanation for the track based on "intelligently directed" as opposed to "natural" movement. Thereby adding strong circumstantial evidence of artificiality.

But why the repetitiveness in the pattern ?

Again, a very simple explanation will suffice.

If the artifact is indeed artificial, then it's a given that it will be in communication with Earth controllers. Now I would have assumed in that case that it would have onboard telemetry feeding through a parabolic dish. This dish would normally be slaved to always point at the Earth to enable continuous transmissions in both directions.

Now, if the slaving mechanism fails, then the only way for the artifact to receive regular mission updates would be for it to periodically stop it's movement (in this case northwards), PHYSICALLY ROTATE it's body until the parabolic dish re-acquires the Earth signal (now facing towards photographic east) ... receive the update ... then rotates back to it's original mission heading (northwards).

At regular intervals, this pattern of stopping, rotating the dish (and main body) towards Earth ... transmission update ... rotating back to original heading ... moving forward, would be repeated over and over. And obviously mission control would not let the artifact travel too great a distance with faulty onboard communications without instructing the artifact to stop regularly and reacquire the signal.

Simple assumptions that fits the observed image details and easily explains the artifact and it's puzzling track pattern.

reply to post by Exuberant1


Why I assume it is just rocks, sir.

Why do you assume there were so many operations to construct this monstrosity to travel just a few hundred yard?

Occam's Razor.

tauristercus,


seems like it had to roll over a few roadblocks, too.


some with a high profile.


no deflection of path that i can see, either.

Why would a large artifact need to reposition so often? I suppose if it was "lost" and trying to establish contact ...can you here me now, can you hear me now...

I like the concept though (veni, vidi... I came I saw I farted.hehahahahaaha crude and to the point, aaah the soldiers life )

as for cylinders:

no doubt that from this image angle and light declivity, these look like large thick walled "pipes" , Mario on the moon anyone?:


bi-cubic enlargement and colorization for focus but no enhancements