Arch on the Moon?

I was browsing some moon pics and came to this one.
(details below)




Circled version




To me this thing does look like an arch or bridge. Even the shadows support that. What's your opinion?

(Yes I also saw the 'pyramid' in the top left corner )

The direct link
wms.lroc.asu.edu...



DETAILS:
Image Data
Time
(DOY:008) 2010-01-08T05:37:43
Orbit
2459
Center Longitude
349.16°
Center Latitude
-43.19°
Resolution
0.5 m/pixel
Mode
Native
Download Supporting File
M117568330R.tif
Caption:
View of a portion of Tycho's crater floor. Image width is 2.4 km
[NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University].



I don't think that something like an arch could be naturally made. No erosion etc. What do you guys Think??

reply to post by Hellas


Can you put a red circle around the spot you would like us to look at? Love this stuff.

Thanks!

I cant see the arch you are talking about. I do see the pile of rubble that you say is a pyramid though.

Originally posted by PushEject
reply to post by Hellas

 

Can you put a red circle around the spot you would like us to look at? Love this stuff.

Thanks!

Updated. Thank you

I see a lot of these "bridges/towers/arches on the moon" posts but no real definitive, clear images of man/alien made structures. Don't get me wrong, I think the moon shouldn't be here, it's easier to explain the non existence of the moon than it's existence.

Here's some examples of natural land bridges...









Showing us the same phenomenon on the moon is not proof of anything other than natural occurrences. Personally I can't see much of anything in the OP example.

reply to post by JibbyJedi


I may have missed the last time the winds were blowing on the moon..

Of course it can be nothing, I just thought I share this.

And even if so, your example are hills or mountain with the 'hole' in them. On the Pic I posted there is nothing BUT the 'arch'

Can't tell much without knowing the heights of those hills in that area. Could be there are three taller areas that are themselves tall enough to be in the light. Those areas would also have shadows that would make it look like a "hole in the shadow.

They won't believe..I posted a square on the moon yesterday and was belittled.Nice moon shots by the way

Originally posted by saroncan
They won't believe..I posted a square on the moon yesterday and was belittled.Nice moon shots by the way

I'm very skeptical about things this, too. To me it's not about believing in this stuff. I just found it weird looking and worth sharing

Originally posted by Hellas
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

I may have missed the last time the winds were blowing on the moon..

Of course it can be nothing, I just thought I share this.

And even if so, your example are hills or mountain with the 'hole' in them. On the Pic I posted there is nothing BUT the 'arch'

edit on 30-1-2012 by Hellas because: (no reason given)

Some land bridges are longer than others, I just threw down some 1st page of Google examples to make the point that they do exist in various shapes and sizes throughout nature.

I don't believe 90% of what NASA tells us about the moon and planets, it's in their best interest to omit most of the truth if they want to maintain their leverage over the naive masses of citizens. There could be wind, air, rain, and snow on the moon for all we know, until we personally go there ourselves, I think we should reserve "conclusions" until we have 100% of the information they've gathered from these places.

Good looking out though, we need more people dissecting every picture they present to the public.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi

Originally posted by Hellas
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

I may have missed the last time the winds were blowing on the moon..

Of course it can be nothing, I just thought I share this.

And even if so, your example are hills or mountain with the 'hole' in them. On the Pic I posted there is nothing BUT the 'arch'

edit on 30-1-2012 by Hellas because: (no reason given)

Some land bridges are longer than others, I just threw down some 1st page of Google examples to make the point that they do exist in various shapes and sizes throughout nature.

I don't believe 90% of what NASA tells us about the moon and planets, it's in their best interest to omit most of the truth if they want to maintain their leverage over the naive masses of citizens. There could be wind, air, rain, and snow on the moon for all we know, until we personally go there ourselves, I think we should reserve "conclusions" until we have 100% of the information they've gathered from these places.

Good looking out though, we need more people dissecting every picture they present to the public.

I hear ya! Can you at least see what I'm seeing? Maybe my eyes play tricks on me, but it really does look some sort of an arch/bridge..

reply to post by Hellas


if you look at how the shadows are, you will see that the one on the right is def. not an arch.

reply to post by Hellas


I think it looks like a regular valley in between rock. The images are 1950s quality, as usual, so there must be something good to find there if the public images quality is still consistently poor into the 21st century. Even the higher quality images seriously degrade as you zoom in, though Google Earth is far better resolution per zoom than any moon/Mars photo I've seen.

I figured that at some point, McDonalds would mark the moon for themselves!

"You deserve a break today..."

reply to post by Hellas


looks like an arch formed by the erosion of water over millions of years. Possible from the moon millions of years ago.

that is what i get out of it.

reply to post by JibbyJedi

Google Moon/Mars uses the same images seen here. Once you zoom past the native resolution all you get is artifacts caused by the algorithm guessing at what is between the pixels.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

Google Moon/Mars uses the same images seen here. Once you zoom past the native resolution all you get is artifacts caused by the algorithm guessing at what is between the pixels.

It doesn't seem that way though. The colors and detail seem a lot worse with lunar/Mars images to me. It shouldn't be that difficult to distinguish between a series of trees and frozen carbon on Mars, though the rover's photos are quite crisp. It would be nice to see ground level images of these "trees" and "lakes" that are indistinguishable from space.

reply to post by JibbyJedi

Do you mean these "trees"?


Or these?


The "trees" are near the poles of Mars, nowhere near the rovers. Not good terrain for the little guy(s)

reply to post by Phage


No, I mean these "trees"...

reply to post by JibbyJedi

Yep. Those are them. Here's the full context of the first one.
hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...
It was discussed here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

With those better quality images you were asking for. Skipper tends to avoid the best quality images for some reason.