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: 15
98
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Perhaps he doesn't think there is enough data to say what it is, so anyone who draws an absolute conclusion is not being honest, especially with themselves.
OK, I understand that, but then he/she also says:


The OP is definitely not a bunch of rocks which have all rolled down the same chute and ended up at the bottom.
and to me that looks more absolute than a "I think".




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123
HOWEVER - can someone please explain that "moving rocks" phenomenon since i am baffled, *what* moves the rocks on moon, there is no weather/wind etc?
Probably one of the biggest sources of changes in rocks on Earth, temperature changes, and those are bigger on the Moon than on Earth.


Furthermore...please carefully examine those tracks..someone know what causes those patterns on the tracks?
The shape of the rolling object. A smooth cylinder would leave a flattened area, a smooth cylinder with a square area protruding from its surface would leave a square hole in the ground, with a space between holes equal to the perimeter of the cylinder, etc.


Why does this formation "move" while the other rocks dont?
Probably because it was in a more unstable position.


Why is not a straight track but has this odd, repeating pattern (it looks like that odd pattern is always on a hill or something looking at the terrain?).
Because of the shape of the object. I don't understand what you mean by "that odd pattern is always on a hill or something".



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
reply to post by ArMaP
 

Is the "anomaly" still there on later passes of the LRO? Has anyone checked for later and earlier images yet?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


I haven't done that yet, but I will try to see what I can get.


Edit: as far as I could see, that site was not photographed again, and I don't even know if they photograph any site more than once (besides the sites with known Earth objects).
edit on 15/8/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I think that some of the moon rocks could well contain moisture and that would increase the expansion and contraction rates, and along with Moonquakes that are apparently much longer lasting, would easliy explain 'moving rocks' They would not even need to be unstable in themselves, rather the suface under them could be unstable for an extended period. There could even be some evidence if you look around that area, it has the appearance of 'old' trails that could be attributed to rolling rocks in the past and that they are less clear is because the gritty moon dust has vibrated over the trails due to unstable ground and causing the same effect as earth windblow and erosion. It should not be a mystery then that rocks can move, or that they gather together in a central way in what looks like a depression.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
It looks to me like woody from toy story at the end of the trail. His hat is top right, he's lying down, feet to the left, head to the upper right, leaning on an elbow. Maybe its an internal april fools piccy that got out or something.

Or.........F**ked up things are afoot on the moon !!



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Pimander
 
I haven't done that yet, but I will try to see what I can get.


Edit: as far as I could see, that site was not photographed again, and I don't even know if they photograph any site more than once (besides the sites with known Earth objects).
edit on 15/8/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)
I very much doubt they would have an operational orbiter but not bother to photograph sites more than once. The LRO Camera is pointing downwards all the time.

Do we have co-ordinates for the "anomaly? I will email the LRO team.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


Why do you want more pictures of rocks?

You don't actually think this is worth using more resources on do you?

Still though it would be cool to use that kind of resource, starting the whole chain of events off with a single e-mail. Satisfying.


*Anyhow, I'm the discoverer and I say it's rocks. Tell that to NASA when you write them.

Also, here are the coordinates and stuff (what was there when I screencapped it):




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Why do you want more pictures of rocks?

You don't actually think this is worth using more resources on do you?

I am just trying to eliminate the possibility (however small) of this being a mining site. There was talk earlier in the thread along those lines although not necessarily this particular anomaly.

Originally posted by zorgon
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.

If there have been no changes at this site then perhaps we can eliminate that possibility. At least the suggestion that there are tracks from a mobile device can be laid to rest.


Originally posted by Exuberant1
*Anyhow, I'm the discoverer and I say it's rocks. Tell that to NASA when you write them.
No worries. They probably are rocks but they do look unusual compared to the other rocks in the area so I see no harm in following up.


Originally posted by Exuberant1
Also, here are the coordinates and stuff...

Thanks for the info. I will post if I can obtain any images of the site taken later.

 


How did you estimate the size?



The LRO camera produces images that are roughly 1 pixel per metre. Are you sure the object(s) aren't larger than your estimate?

EDIT:

Originally posted by ArMaP
Look at the image Exuberant1 posted, below the coordinates it shows the resolution, 0.6 metres per pixel.
In which case the estimate is close enough. Ignore that question

edit on 16/8/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
How did you estimate the size?
Look at the image Exuberant1 posted, below the coordinates it shows the resolution, 0.6 metres per pixel.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I think this thread needs a bump or at least a new thread due to the movie Apollo 18 about to hit theaters. I am not sure if it had been mentioned but the movie about a secret mission which I am betting they did not return from and that this is actually a lander from that mission. The original destination of Apollo 18 was Schröteri Crater.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Here's an interesting image from the Schrodinger Basin rim at:

lroc.sese.asu.edu.../archives/2011/08/17/C2.html

Look familiar?






edit on 24-8-2011 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I really don't understand the whole boulder/rover theory that is prevalent in this thread.

Judging from the gouges, this "thing" really does seem to move like a mech or crawler. Probably the latter, as it seems to be articulated at its centre. After the rear has moved up (creating the main gouge), the front half swings forward, on the right hand side, from an initial rear position, creating the crescent shaped gouge to the right of the main gouge. This little guy is probably representative of how it moves - sort of like a sidewinder snake.



The structure on the left of the "thing" that looks like a cylinder with a crescent below it, never seems to touch the surface at all. There is also a large ball shaped structure on the right above the part that causes the crescent gouging, but it never seems to make contact with ground either.

I also found it easier to just do a quick sketch to show detail. Apologies if the image doesn't show, so I have also included a direct link. It's my first time posting here and I just couldn't let this lie. The boulder and rover theories don't make any logical sense when you look at the gouge marks.

At the front, there also seems to be some sort of "cabin" like you would find on a crane, but seeing as how large this is, I doubt that is its function.

imageshack.us...


edit on 2-9-2011 by pixiegonebad because: punctuation

edit on 2-9-2011 by pixiegonebad because: punctuation



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by breadmaker99
The big question? why are there skeptics on a forum that requires imagination, a leap of faith, and a keen interest in anomolies? very interesting

Personally? To advise those with very, very open minds when their brains are falling out.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by pixiegonebad
 

Personally I think it moves along a central track and has a outrigger on either side and on this terrain it's only the right side outrigger that is needed for stability. The thing's probably balanced by gyroscopes. Interesting bit is where it went over the small rock. The rock still has a shadow and doesn't look like it was compressed into the surface and was strong enough to move the object's direction, so the object must be pretty llight (even at a sixth gravity). Also it must be moving pretty slowly as hitting that rock would have bounced off the ground otherwise.

Maybe imagine reeling in a fishing lure across the water's surface. You can tell I don't think the object is a rock or rocks.


edit on 2/9/2011 by nomadros because: typo



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by nomadros
 


I agree on the outrigger idea, but the while the one on the left seems static, the one on the right keeps sweeping forward, hence the crescent shaped gouging. If you look at the original image, you can see a new gouge being formed on the right hand side. If it isn't using gyros then the left rig would provide a perfect counterbalance to the right arm swinging forward.

It does seem a very inefficient and slow way to get about, but I presume there must be a good reason for it.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Any sites have multiple over lap ( especially in the pre-digital era, ) nasa as a 'de-facto' military information gathering unit uses multiple redundancy as a standard procedure . It's in the protocol, if you can't be bothered to check why should you be answering as a mod on this subject?

Every single SigInt person I talk to tells me the libido of that object does NOT CONFORM to a natural object...so ...since you haven't explained that away please tell me how the light reflection differences in the area are so off for the materials in question , and then we will get back to the track question ( and the cylinder question, and why you are a mod...) .



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Yep, and Mount Rushmore was produced because the land mass at the top eroded in the right perspective to create the faces we see today.


Get a life, get a grip.

You really are a sad face around here.

Go troll somewhere else with your lame "It's a boulder moving up hill" logic.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   


Every single SigInt person I talk to tells me the libido of that object does NOT CONFORM to a natural object
reply to post by Silverlok
 

So just how much libido does a natural object have as opposed to an unnatural object?
Would a testosterone supplement help?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok
Any sites have multiple over lap ( especially in the pre-digital era, ) nasa as a 'de-facto' military information gathering unit uses multiple redundancy as a standard procedure .
Not all, the closest to full coverage of the Moon that we (common people to access to public photos) have, the one from Clementine, has some empty spaces for which there aren't any photos, and they didn't had the time to pass over that area again.

Taking photos from a satellite, they are limited to the satellite's orbits, they cannot go back and take another photo, they need to wait for the next orbit that passes over that area, and even then the orbit may not cover the whole area.


It's in the protocol, if you can't be bothered to check why should you be answering as a mod on this subject?
I was not answering as a mod, I was answering as an ATS member, and being a mod has nothing to do with the subjects discussed.

And no, I didn't check any protocol, either from NASA or from other organisations, because I didn't thought it was needed, but I would thank if you could be so kind to provide to us all that information that you, apparently, see as important for the subject.

Thanks in advance.


Every single SigInt person I talk to tells me the libido of that object does NOT CONFORM to a natural object...so ...since you haven't explained that away please tell me how the light reflection differences in the area are so off for the materials in question , and then we will get back to the track question ( and the cylinder question, and why you are a mod...) .
Do they know the parameters for that photo? Do they know the albedo (I suppose that's what you wanted to say, I hope that's not the word those SigInt people used...) of the darker and brighter areas of the photo?

You do know that in a photo we can change the amount of light that reaches the film or sensor, making brighter areas darker than they are and/or darker areas brighter than they are, so without a reference nobody, not even a SigInt expert, can tell you that the albedo of the object does not conform to a natural object.

The thought that a natural object must conform to any thing doesn't look much technical or scientific, seeing that we have rocks with extremely low and extremely high albedo.

Why I am a mod is not the topic, so I will not answer any questions about it on this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
98
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join