The Secrets of Schröteri Crater

reply to post by LazyGuy


I think the object you marked is too small to leave those prints, they look made by a wider object.

incredible
i've been trying to see it as a pile of rocks and i just can't do it
definitely looks like some sort of structure

we need closer looks at this.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by LazyGuy

 

I think the object you marked is too small to leave those prints, they look made by a wider object.

The object is on it's side relative to how it was rolling.
Notice the shadow?
The object I highlighted is a lot bigger than you might think.

Originally posted by LazyGuy
The object is on it's side relative to how it was rolling.
Notice the shadow?

Yes, I noticed the shadow, and if you compare it other object's shadows you can see that the Sun was just 28.85º above the horizon, making shadows 1.8 times bigger than the object (unless my calculations are flawed ).

The object I highlighted is a lot bigger than you might think.

How can you know that? If we start speculating about the size of the objects I can say that the object you marked in yellow was really 50 metres long but with with 34 metres underground.

reply to post by ArMaP
Oooh, look at ArMap showing off his trigonometry.

You should take a look a this.



Greetz,

Sander

reply to post by 1967sander


I think I will never understand why people think that they can make a photo look better than the original just because they applied some filters that mess up the original...

Answering the question at the end of the video, it's obvious that it doesn't look natural, because it was artificially made by the filters.

If we have a pumpkin and carve it, does it still look like a natural pumpkin?

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by 1967sander

 

I think I will never understand why people think that they can make a photo look better than the original just because they applied some filters that mess up the original...

It has to do with the audience.

The audience wants smooth, photograph-type images. There are a few who will complain about this, but they are the minority and not likely to have an effect.

*I think the worst offense is using google moon for anomaly/lunar research.

Is there an easy way to find out which lunar orbiter/nasa images were used on a given part of google moon?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by LazyGuy
The object is on it's side relative to how it was rolling.
Notice the shadow?

Yes, I noticed the shadow, and if you compare it other object's shadows you can see that the Sun was just 28.85º above the horizon, making shadows 1.8 times bigger than the object (unless my calculations are flawed

).

The object I highlighted is a lot bigger than you might think.

How can you know that? If we start speculating about the size of the objects I can say that the object you marked in yellow was really 50 metres long but with with 34 metres underground.

Without knowing the topography calculations can't be much more than an educated guess. If the shadow is falling on an up or a down slope it would invalidate the accuracy of your mathematics.

I would also venture the idea that the angle of the object relative to the camera would also have to be taken into account. The camera most likely wasn't perpendicular to the surface. In fact, it appears to be significantly off. The ground track where the camera would be vertical appears to be quite some distance to the right of the object.

I'd also like to call upon Occam's Razor for support. If it wasn't the object I highlighted then what could it be?
Strolling alien lifeforms with a really really odd way of getting from one place to another?

Originally posted by LazyGuy
Without knowing the topography calculations can't be much more than an educated guess. If the shadow is falling on an up or a down slope it would invalidate the accuracy of your mathematics.

That's true, but I don't see anything that makes me think that we are looking at a very sloped area, so, although an educated guess, it's better than trying to come up with a value based on what we think.

I would also venture the idea that the angle of the object relative to the camera would also have to be taken into account. The camera most likely wasn't perpendicular to the surface. In fact, it appears to be significantly off. The ground track where the camera would be vertical appears to be quite some distance to the right of the object.

The camera wasn't perpendicular to the surface, it was making an 88.8 degrees angle with surface, so, although not really vertical, I think it was close enough not to make a big difference.

I'd also like to call upon Occam's Razor for support. If it wasn't the object I highlighted then what could it be?
Strolling alien lifeforms with a really really odd way of getting from one place to another?

It could have been any of those objects lying there. One of the problems is that we cannot know where an object starts and the other ends, the objects are too small in the photo for us to get a good idea of what they are, that's why we have so many possibilities presented in this thread.

And no, I don't think it was an Alien with a silly walk.

Hi People

Besides the lunar anomaly cricket match that is currently underway.Do not get me wrong cricket is exciting to watch there is a climax moment but dies to dull when it repeats its self over and over.
The exciting part of EX1s find and big browny points go to Zorgon for going into bat for EX1 and keeping his find alive is that it has created a debate that is hit from one side of the playing field to the other .
Catch of the day is we have an anomaly that has had motion not only one forward track but every so often in a regular patten scours the terrain in a half circular motion off to the right of the leading tracks.

The conformity of the additional I will call lunar scouring is almost measurable to the meters or what ever unit of measurement tickles your fancy.

Now call me a non observant ignorant moon anomaly fanatic But I notice the movements have a regular patten that said ,what if they would be ! "Lunar Rocks" would they roll in a pattern that is not natural to shifting or slipping by rock materials and keep their uniformity in a regular patten for such a distance.
I think not..

Exhibit 1



notice no coloration needed to define the obvious (being sarcastic)

I'm glad the lunar surface has enough moisture to make the tracks more visible .(note to self must thank the Indians for confirming this phenomena for NASA).

reply to post by ocker

You may be right in all you say, but I don't understand a thing of it.

Could you please rephrase it? Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by ocker

 

You may be right in all you say, but I don't understand a thing of it.

Could you please rephrase it? Thanks in advance.

Hahaha HI ArMaP hope you are well. sorry if I rambled .

I looked at all the possibilities before making a my decision. What EX1 has found is not a natural occurrence .

The main point I was making is in the Image of the tracks of the said Lunar anomaly.

There is a regular scouring variation that takes place for what seems to be in a pre determined pattern of a half oval that appears to be a measured length.

It is quite unique if and defiantly irregular for a rock or rocks to slide or roll this way.

Cheers

Originally posted by ocker


It is quite unique if and defiantly irregular for a rock or rocks to slide or roll this way.

I know this is on Earth,but I find this natural phenomena almost the same as the one on the moon...........



Racetrack Playa

So many questions..........

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by ocker


It is quite unique if and defiantly irregular for a rock or rocks to slide or roll this way.

I know this is on Earth,but I find this natural phenomena almost the same as the one on the moon...........

Racetrack Playa

So many questions..........

err, yes, except.... that picture has already been posted in this thread.
and others like it!
and they are caused by a culmination of weather effects, wind and rain and ice,
none of which are noticeable for their effect on the moon.
i urge you to go back and read the thread, it is all explained in there.

reply to post by sonnny1


Hi thanks for the picture
yes it is an amazing turn

It does not show the pattern to be continuous and as regular as the Image Zorgon enhanced .
If your picture continued on the same angular path for a considerable distance you would have me having second thoughts.

Thanks

reply to post by decepticonLaura


I actually have read the thread. Zorgon has made me a believer .

Was just pointing out their are so many questions to it all......
I believe its artificial,but unless we put someone back up there to check it out,or have better resolution pics,we will never know.....IMHO

Originally posted by ocker
Hahaha HI ArMaP hope you are well. sorry if I rambled .

Everything's OK, thanks.

I looked at all the possibilities before making a my decision. What EX1 has found is not a natural occurrence .

I don't think we have enough information to make a decision if it's natural or not.

It is quite unique if and defiantly irregular for a rock or rocks to slide or roll this way.

An irregular rock would make an irregular pattern on the ground, only a perfect cylinder would leave a large, clean track and only a perfect sphere would leave a perfect track.

A irregularly spheric rock would leave, for example, a wobbly track, while a cylinder with a bump on one of its extremeties would leave a clear track that would disappear for a moment on one side (while the bump was lifting the rest of the rock), a mark of the bump, and then the clear, wide track would appear again.

Variations of those shapes can give very different track shapes.

reply to post by ArMaP

A irregularly spheric rock would leave, for example, a wobbly track, while a cylinder with a bump on one of its extremeties would leave a clear track that would disappear for a moment on one side (while the bump was lifting the rest of the rock), a mark of the bump, and then the clear, wide track would appear again.

I concur with your analogy if it was what was indeed happening in the image discussed.

We have a regular virtual straight main track with a variance different to the main off to one side,
as the main track continues on it is only to be met with what appears to be at certain measured intervals with the varying semi circular side track.

I see the theory you are suggesting and you are looking at all varying possibilities.

it is not apparent here

cheers

Especially in light gravity an uneven mass would not have a straight ( ISH ) track down hill( as is illustrated by the rotational indent marks). It is simple, very simple, physics. the only way a mass could have an relatively straight track over that large of a distance is if it had a relatively high initial velocity vector. The exponentially increasing force correction ( harmonic oscillation) of the vector of a dropped rock from a precipice in an off balance ( center of gravity ) mass leaves a wobble trail, especially with as much of a foot print as that off center divet indicates it would not remain so mathematically "straight:" over such a large distance if it was a uniformly distributed mass ( no matter it's cohesion density ). so either it is fake or of uniform density , uniform density still does not explau=in away the two nearly circular protuberances in the rest position photo