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.
Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by arianna
Could you answer a question (besides all of those that I have asked and that you ignored)? Considering the size of the shadows, how high do you think those structures are?
How did you get that 0.5622 metres per pixel resolution? The original image in the Arizona State University page is a 0.6 metres per pixel image, while the original raw image from which that one was made is 0.62 in the horizontal and 0.66 in vertical. Also, to get that height, what Sun height did you consider, seeing that we cannot get an height just by using the length of the shadows?
Originally posted by arianna
To calculate dimensions I have used the base image of the arrowed image shown above. The resolution of this image is 0.5622m/ pixel. The majority of the structures range from 2.8m in height to over 8.4m for some of the larger structures.
One of the reasons I ask to many questions is because I want to know what you mean and do not provide enough data on your own, as you can see with the questions I needed to ask just above this paragraph.
The reason I have been ignoring many of your questions is because you ask too many.
Those questions wouldn't be needed if you provided all the information needed in your posts. I thought that serious scientific work is accompanied by the data to replicate the things that are being reported, but I can be wrong.
Unfortunately, I do not have time with all the other academic and astronomical research I am currently persuing to answer multiple queries when a one-line question would be sufficient.
That's easy, if it was a Court of Law you would had to answer.
We have to remember this is only a forum, not a Court of Law.
Originally posted by ArMaP
How did you get that 0.5622 metres per pixel resolution? The original image in the Arizona State University page is a 0.6 metres per pixel image, while the original raw image from which that one was made is 0.62 in the horizontal and 0.66 in vertical. Also, to get that height, what Sun height did you consider, seeing that we cannot get an height just by using the length of the shadows?
Originally posted by arianna
To calculate dimensions I have used the base image of the arrowed image shown above. The resolution of this image is 0.5622m/ pixel. The majority of the structures range from 2.8m in height to over 8.4m for some of the larger structures.
Could you please paint over the "water tower"? It would be easier to know what you're talking about if you pointed them to us, we cannot see them, remember?
Originally posted by arianna
Take note of the group of buildings near the top of the image and to the right is a very tall structure that could possibly be a water tower.
Originally posted by ArMaP
Could you please paint over the "water tower"? It would be easier to know what you're talking about if you pointed them to us, we cannot see them, remember?
Originally posted by arianna
Take note of the group of buildings near the top of the image and to the right is a very tall structure that could possibly be a water tower.
Thanks in advance.
.....what could possibly be a water tower in yellow.
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by arianna
I will ask again:
At the resolution of about 1/2 meter per pixel.....why aren't these so-called "structures" far, far, far more evident?
Compare to other images at similar resolutions.
And, one more thing to ponder: Where are the "roadways"???
Oh, and sorry but "water tower"?? On the Moon, in a near perfect vacuum environment? Come on, use some common sense........
edit on Sun 11 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)
Why shouldn't there be water towers on the Moon?
If there is an alien existence surviving on the surface I am sure they would have provided a method of storing water at a great height due to the low gravity factor.
Who says it a perfect vacuum environment?
The depth of the crater (7152-meters (23,000 ft) below the standard topographic datum of Mars) explains the atmospheric pressure at the bottom: 1,155 Pa (11.55 mbar, 0.17 psi, or 0.01 atm). This is 89% higher than the pressure at the topographical datum (610 Pa, or 6.1 mbar or 0.09 psi) and above the triple point of water, suggesting that the liquid phase would be transient (would evaporate over time) if the temperature would rise above 0 °C (32 °F).
Pressurization occurs through the hydrostatic pressure of the elevation of water; for every 10.20 centimetres (4.016 in) of elevation, it produces 1 kilopascal (0.145 psi) of pressure. 30 m (98.43 ft) of elevation produces roughly 300 kPa (43.511 psi), which is enough pressure to operate and provide for most domestic water pressure and distribution system requirements. Hydrostatic pressure is the pressure exerted by a fluid at equilibrium due to the force of gravity
Light gases, like hydrogen, are heated to velocities sufficiently high enough to escape the gravitational pull. Most gases are eventually removed by the solar wind. As a result there is essentially no atmosphere to create an atmospheric pressure on the surface, as we experience on earth from pressure created by the weight of the column of air above us. The atmospheric pressure on the surface of the moon was measured at ~1x 10-12 mm Hg (760 mm Hg = 1 atm= 1.01E5 Pa = 101 kPa), which is so little pressure that the moon can be considered a hard vacuum. This is a pressure that can only be achieved on earth in special vacuum chambers.
Originally posted by arianna
wmd_2008, The 'large rock' you keep referring to is NOT a rock. It is a large structure constructed of what would appear to be a light-colored building material which has excellent reflective properties. That's why the shape appears so bright in the original image.