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.

 

Arch on the Moon?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Hellas
 


Different mineral layers, impact at the right angle and size. Its a big world out there, probabilities are at staggering figures in terms of numbers.

I still don't understand a significance of a natural bridge.

Would excavated salt mines in the world fit a description of a bridge? If so, we know there are areas of our earth's crust that have concentrations of particular minerals as opposed to a steady consistent distribution of all like mater.

That's how we find oil, coal, diamonds, and gold.
edit on 4-2-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)


Apparently that is not the only thing you don't understand.
An arch just cannot be a natural formation, when it comes to the moon.
Here on earth, an arch is either created by man or by erosion.

As far as the mines you mentioned go, we DIG mines. This arch or rock formation is on the surface of the moon. It is standing alone there. This is not a hole in a mountain or big rock, which could have been formed by an impact.




posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


But you see....all the discussion about erosion on Earth, and "arch" formations is well and good but......the image in this thread's OP is not of an "arch", at all!

It is a trick of the light, and the shadows that existed at the moment in time when the photo was taken. That is all.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


I can understand that and sure it can be a trick of light and shadow.

But saying it's a natural formation is not really plausible
edit on 4-2-2012 by Hellas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 



But saying it's a natural formation is not really plausible.


I must have missed that ^ ^ ^.

Perhaps any who wrote it was a "natural formation" meant it (as I do, when I look at the image) in the sense that the peaks, the ridges, etc.....the terrain of the Moon that is highlighted by the angle of the Sun, in the moment of the image capture, are all "natural".

NOT that the so-called "arch" appearance is "natural"...(because there actually is no "arch").



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Actually, arches - or more properly, "natural bridges" do exist on the Moon:

September 7. 2010

Just when you think you have seen everything, LROC reveals a natural bridge on the Moon! Who would have thought? Natural bridges on the Earth are typically the result of wind and water erosion - not a likely scenario on the Moon. So how did this natural bridge form? The most likely answer is dual collapse into a lava tube. From the Apollo era, SELENE, and LROC images, we know that lava tubes did form in the Moon's ancient past. SELENE and LROC images have raised the tantalizing prospects that lava tubes remain intact to this day. However this bridge did not form in mare (basalt), but rather in impact melt from King crater! More astonishingly, the same NAC image revealed two natural bridges - not just one!


Link with pictures

That said, I agree that the images in the OP are probably tricks of light & shadow. As a rule, I am always deeply suspicious of interpretation based on very low sun-angle images, since this is when errors of interpretation are most likely to occur.

Quote from the above link:

There are actually six NAC images in which you can find the bridge under varying lighting (M103725084L, M103732241L, M106088433L, M113168034R, M123785162L, M123791947L). Why so many images? The melt sheet north of King crater is one of the Constellation regions of interest - a high priority for LROC coverage. As the pair of images below vividly illustrate, having a set of images of the same under varying lighting allows scientists to more confidently interpret the local geology and thus better prepare for future exploration.


Link to M113168034R

That said, kudos to Hellas for providing the detailed image information in the OP. I wish everyone did that!



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


ALL very interesting....but could you, please, locate those images and then, apply them to the Original Post assertion?

Please?

What I wish to point out here is......the OP used a telescope to video what was called an "Arch" on the Moon, as viewed from the Earth, via a telescope......and seen near the Moon's southern pole region.


CAN YOU provide the location of the images you offered? Are they anywhere near the Moon's south pole, or even in that hemisphere of the Moon??

ON EDIT...

Because your post above references the "King" crater....so I looked it up:

King Crater (Moon)


From what I see, the "King Crater" is located at latitude 3.2°N to 6.5°N...no where near the South Pole of the Moon......
edit on Sat 4 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


ALL very interesting....but could you, please, locate those images and then, apply them to the Original Post assertion?

Please?

What I wish to point out here is......the OP used a telescope to video what was called an "Arch" on the Moon, as viewed from the Earth, via a telescope......and seen near the Moon's southern pole region.


CAN YOU provide the location of the images you offered? Are they anywhere near the Moon's south pole, or even in that hemisphere of the Moon??


No I didn't actually. In the OP I provide the link of the source. It is an original NASA Photo



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


OK...fair enough, I stand corrected.....the original NASA photo for the OP.

I still stand by all other posts, in reference to that image.

Care to elaborate?



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


It's the view of a portion of Tycho's crater floor. The whole image from the link has a width of 2.4 km.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


I fully understand that.

However the illusion of an "arch" is entirely due to the angle of the Sun, as it illuminated the scene, in that ONE image example.

Such illusions are not unique to the Moon.....a comprehensive collection of views, with other sunlight angles, of the same region, dispels the impression of an "arch", immediately.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Hellas
 


I fully understand that.

However the illusion of an "arch" is entirely due to the angle of the Sun, as it illuminated the scene, in that ONE image example.

Such illusions are not unique to the Moon.....a comprehensive collection of views, with other sunlight angles, of the same region, dispels the impression of an "arch", immediately.


Which I would love to see, but can't seem to find any.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


so that nobody gets confused with what I mean by 'arch', I made this crappy attempt to show you in a modelled version what I think I see.


Original




Comparison


ETA: Of course I couldn't simulate the Terrain like it is, but i think you get my point
edit on 4-2-2012 by Hellas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
So why wouldn't something like illustrated below to be a more accurate representation of what's going on in that image? A curved ravine.




If you note, and you probably have if you tried to simulate what looks like a shadow of an arch, that the light angle just doesn't match up. You couldn't simulate the shadow with the light source consistent with the rest of the terrain. As you see that isn't a shadow, it isn't an arch, the two shapes are unrelated.
edit on 4-2-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


How do you see the connection from a ravine to an arch? Two completely different things.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


I edited my previous post. Tell me where I might be in error now.

Would you like me to add an arch to my terrain, and better match the light source angle so we can see if an arch would make the shadow in the photo?
edit on 4-2-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Hellas
 


I edited my previous post. Tell me where I might be in error now.



Regarding the shadows, my opinion is that due to the terrain anomalies, the light could throw the shadow like it does.

Oh I now see what you mean. You might be right with the ravine. Which could very well be the source of the shadows, but doesn't let the arch disappear.

Star for you, though!



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
OK, an arch created in an isolated plane. See if the light source is acceptable, note the shadow.





Note the 'apparent' shadow in the photo.

Not close.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


First off all thank you for your effort.

I can see what you mean. I can't say for 100% that the shadow isn't there since there is much terrain in front and in the back of the arch and the shadow could be behind that.

But it seems that you're right.

Oh well..



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


Immediate convincing argument (for an arch) you had, my terrain is not altimeter derived, for what its worth, I'm not sure what I see as an apparent shadow is related to the ridge or whatever it is there. On the photo there is information in the dark areas that don't immediately show up until some exposure adjustments are made. It is a lossy photo. I try not to analyze lossy photos.

(thanks for the star)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


You're welcome!

That's what I meant in my last post. Since the light comes from the left side, the shadow would look something like this. And because of the stuff in front it doesn't show.












But we can discuss this back and forth. we just can't know for sure



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join