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.

 

The Secrets of Schröteri Crater

page: 13
98
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Yes the sides will be brighter that is why i inverted the colours, and as I said because some areas reflect more light or they are naturally bright they may give false height position.
So I cant be sure that its the correct position.
I cant find a picture from a place I know, maybe if you give me a link from some place you know and I will post the results. To see how well it does.
A height data map or topology map from that place(on the moon) would be be very nice, then we will know for sure if its uphill or downhill.
edit on 18/2/11 by defiler because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Just because it doesn't look like a sandwich doesn't mean it isn't one... I mean duh ... it could be anything that cannot be proved by a negative, or wait can we validate things with negative reciprocation these days, perhaps tech lets us eh?

The bell shaped curve of distribution certainly SHOULD apply on the moon EVERYWHERE if the current public theories of cosmology turn out to be even mostly CORRECT. SOOOO... random distribution ( a thing that is actually used to age artifacts in space ) having aberrant evidence anomalies are at the very least worthy of more investigation. They are certainly worthy of more discourse than the pedantic sophism of nomenclature adhesion or obfuscation, certainly where do new words come from if not from "NEW" things, which implies the ability to imagine and or recognize new things either natural or produced. this is the ability that separates us from weasles and pond scum and weather we are right or wrong such statements as '...it may be "x" even if "x" is undefined..' should not close a subject but open one.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Did anyone consider the possibility that the "Object" got attacked and crashed into the Moon? The tracks look like it wasn´t fully functional so maybe it tumbled for the last meters and just "died". When i look at the pictures it resembles some kind of vehicle but as someone stated no rover is matching its size so it could be anything even a alien artifact is possible. It´s very interesting though.

Thx for the pictures.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by defiler
A height data map or topology map from that place(on the moon) would be be very nice, then we will know for sure if its uphill or downhill.
Maybe this will help, but I don't think it has enough detail.

PS: the area from the photo in the OP is 0N_45N_270_360.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

since you are a moderator I would respectfully request a reply to your observation on "cylinders" in this thread. Also I am extremely curious WHY you chose that particular avatar? I am not against a natural origin but please explain to me HOW this object is like natural rock to you ?

edit on 19-2-2011 by Silverlok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok
since you are a moderator I would respectfully request a reply to your observation on "cylinders" in this thread.
Looking at the original image, I don't think they look like cylinders, is as simple as that.



Do they look like cylinders to you in the above image?

That's why I am against using resampled images, we end up looking at the results of some software algorithm instead of the original image.


Also I am extremely curious WHY you chose that particular avatar?
Because it's a digital and simplified representation of myself, like what I write on ATS.


I am not against a natural origin but please explain to me HOW this object is like natural rock to you ?
It doesn't look different from other groups of rocks. I think it was a larger rock that rolled down hill (and not up hill, like some people apparently thought) and stopped against a group of smaller rocks that were at the end of the slope.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
It seemed like a robotic spider, that crawled it way to somewhere, the path behind makes it look like it was crawling.
Zorgon you rock!
edit on 20-2-2011 by B1993 because: Had to add "Zorgon rocks"



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
I personally think this is our lunar neighbours attempt at building their own version of stonehenge!



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
If the anomaly was some sort of vehicle/rover thing wouldn't if of squashed the rocks that I've indicated with an arrow into the ground?




posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Versa
If the anomaly was some sort of vehicle/rover thing wouldn't if of squashed the rocks that I've indicated with an arrow into the ground?

Do we know when the rocks landed there? We don't even know what the object(s) are yet do we? Or have I missed something (long thread)?

edit on 20/2/11 by Pimander because: end quote added



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
Do we know when the rocks landed there? We don't even know what the object(s) are yet do we? Or have I missed something (long thread)?


No we don't know when they 'landed there' but I would of thought that if they had landed on the 'tracks' they would of made at least some sort of crater where the track is or disturbed the tracks somehow, which they don't appear to have done...
edit on 20-2-2011 by Versa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Versa
they would of made at least some sort of crater where the track is or disturbed the tracks somehow, which they don't appear to have done...


one of the main things the no Apollo believers use as 'proof' is no crater under the landers



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Versa
they would of made at least some sort of crater where the track is or disturbed the tracks somehow, which they don't appear to have done...


one of the main things the no Apollo believers use as 'proof' is no crater under the landers



that's as maybe...

My point was..... if a stone (and those are LARGE stones) drops from the sky onto a surface that is soft enough for tracks to be made in then it is reasonable to assume that those rocks would disturb the area around them and also disturb the tracks.
edit on 20-2-2011 by Versa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Versa


Rocks don't fall from the sky and 'land' gently on the surface... at least not that I have seen... and rocks the size of a house do not role up inclines like the one in the Lunar Orbiter shot..

I will have to see if LRO did a sweep over Vitello crater... if not maybe send in a request. I want to see if it is still there



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Rocks don't fall from the sky and 'land' gently on the surface... at least not that I have seen...


no they don't, that was kind of my point.... so they must of been there before the tracks were made and as they haven't been squashed into the soft ground they can only of got there by falling off the large rock at the bottom of the track.



and rocks the size of a house do not role up inclines like the one in the Lunar Orbiter shot..


Sorry I think I must of missed the part of this thread which proved the track was headed up hill rather than down.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Versa
they would of made at least some sort of crater where the track is or disturbed the tracks somehow, which they don't appear to have done...


one of the main things the no Apollo believers use as 'proof' is no crater under the landers

Not fair. You have to explain to Versa why that is a red herring rather than just laugh at him you big sword bearing bully



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by defiler
The displacement map uses an algorithm that shows the whites as high ground and the grays or blacks as low ground.
The brighter areas are the sides of the rille that are facing the Sun, wouldn't that make those areas as being the lower ones (seeing that you used the "negative" image) while the the areas in the shadow would appear as higher areas?

Could you do that you a known area so we can see if it works?

Thanks in advance.

ArMaP's right here. defiler, your image processing method does not show which areas are higher. There is no way just inversion allows you to turn dark and light shadows into elevation. Sorry.
edit on 20/2/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
wms.lroc.asu.edu...

Don't know if this was already posted but it's the zoomable LROC image from their online browser.

Looks like a pile of boulders tbh. At the top of the peak there are a large collection of boulders, some of which have rolled down and due to the depth of the valley created by the large boulder, many have rolled down the same one to come to rest at the bottom.

Sorry to say but i'm not buying all this secret conspiracy buggy/building rubbish lol.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by zorgon
one of the main things the no Apollo believers use as 'proof' is no crater under the landers

Not fair. You have to explain to Versa why that is a red herring rather than just laugh at him you big sword bearing bully



Her




and yes please explain because you have me at a disadvantage



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Versa
Her





I beg your pardon fair lady, Please accept my humble apology.



new topics

top topics



 
98
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join