It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Finally! - A REAL Lunar Anomaly?

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:54 PM
@AmatuerSkyWatcher.... I may be able to do one better than Clementine. There may be several Lunar Orbit and/or Apollo shots that we can use. Clementine is a very good place to start. Good call.

As for which organization may be the harsher censor, I would expect the Chinese to be right up there but if there is one thing we might expect ( a lesson learned from the Manahttan project) scientists can band together in a common opinion and it may not have any bearing who comes from which country. Scientists are the ones who come closest to running the show. All the "money" bases the decisions "it makes" on where the science takes it. If the scientists from several countries , even very opposed countries, need for things to play out a certain way, they can make it so as long as they have a consensus.

In this context, if most of the scientists involved in this sort of research agree that none of them should point the way to 'anomalies'... it won't happen..even if a few want to go rogue with their info. The political fallout of such an act would trash a very hardwon career in a big flash.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:16 PM
reply to post by Malkuth

At the same time though, Your theory goes out the window as soon as the masters of puppets of whatever subject nation decideds to fill those Scientists wallets and swiss bank accounts in return for their yes man cooperation. Just saying my friend. A whole hell of alot of that stuff going on I would bet. ~SheopleNation

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Please don't use google moon for anomaly hunting. It never ends well.

If you absolutely must look for anomalies, please use the new LRO images, the lunar orbiter frames or the Apollo orbital images.

Well, I'll tell you how it is. I don't usually look for lunar anomalies anymore because all past attempts have always resulted in failure. However, after I exhaust looking at the threads on this forum I do a cursory Google search to see if anything new turns up. That's how I caught the one under present discussion.

But since mainidh has provided what seems to be the answer, I wish I had done a bit more research before starting this thread. I don't think that regardless of the source, LRO, LO, Clementine, or Apollo anyone is really going to find anything considered alien.

In order for that to happen, lunar aliens if they do exist, would have to be pretty stupid since starting in the '60s the sky above the moon has shown "them" that "they're" being spied upon without the spying being on purpose since the missions were never about finding alien activity.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:29 PM
reply to post by The Shrike

Are you using a "Pro" version of Google Earth??

I went to those coordinates, and I don't see anything in that much detail.

ETA: Wait. Nevermind, I see it. Had to play around with some of the layers a bit.

Yup, that certainly is anomolous. Interesting find.
edit on 5-3-2012 by sumgai because: ETA

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:35 PM
I have not yet read the 6 pages of comments but by the never of flags that the thread has received I can tell that it's been warmed up to and I thank you all.

However, on page 2 mainidh included photos in his reply showing almost similar images to the one I started the thread with. So, I admit that the anomaly doesn't seem to be a real anomaly but it's due to the technology used to create Google Moon. IOW, the anomaly was/is not there on the moon but in computer software.

Therefore, similar to Arthur C. Clarke's admittance that the piper cub enhacement changed his mind about future UFO reports, I think I'm done with reports of alleged lunar anomalies. Of course, I'll still look at posted images and I'll form an opinion but I'm not going to waste any more time to searching for them. But allow me to go back on my word for no one knows what the future holds.

Addition to above reply:
If I didn't reply to your reply it's not because I'm ignoring you but because there are now 8 pages and quite a few of the replies are from members who point out that I erred and they include examples of similar images to the one I posted. In a way, I'm glad I started this thread because there has been a side benefit in addition to learning how knowledgeable some members are about photography, pixels, moon, etc., but that some of the replies contain links to other interesting websites and that is like mining for gold, sometimes you hit a vein!

edit on 5-3-2012 by The Shrike because: To add comment.

edit on 5-3-2012 by The Shrike because: To add comment.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Mianeye
I think you found absolutly nothing.

And this made me smile.

And it's not on a NASA photo, it's at Google Moon.

It clearly says NASA in the bottom of your pictures.
edit on 5-3-2012 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)

I'm sure that the more familiar with lunar anomalies accepted that I was trying to discredit the usual NASA photos such as the Lunar Orbiters, Clementine, etc., not the "funding" agency.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:51 PM
reply to post by Blaine91555

Exactly my point, using google for evidence towards proving anomalous things on the moon is pointless, as any intricate detail is obscured by the process that allows all and sundry to view it.

The data that should be investigated (if there is any need to, and for many there is) is in the data you mention, not the highly compressed and roughly rendered 3d imagery of what google offers.

I don't blame the OP however, his intentions are valued. It's those who take it at face value and then get snotty when put to task about what it is they're seeing. Oooh now they are tiresome..

No more than I, I would assume to some, as I pipe up time and time again, so all in all, things work out in the end.... which is, none of us can say one way or another... I just prefer to base my opinion on what I know as fact coupled with what I can see... rather than a belief system that realistically is no more than faith.

edit on 5-3-2012 by mainidh because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:56 PM
reply to post by The Shrike

It is an image artifact or something to do with google's way of processing. Look at the other crater above the one ou sqaured/ Each crater has light. Alien homes?

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:57 PM

Originally posted by SmertSpionam1
reply to post by greeneyedleo

Typical forum moderator speak.....keep it up.
2nd line unlike you, must be nice to be the boss man, nice looking you are though, easy on the eyes. But eyes are deceiving aren't they.

To the OP, I sure am glad you are no counter sniper, you would have me worried in the field.
edit on 5-3-2012 by SmertSpionam1 because: (no reason given)

Did you seriously just say that? lmao..

You do know that the 1 line rule only applies if what you contribute is largely for non topical and adds nothing to the thread?

And with that, adding "2nd" in no way validates a non topical reply.

"I agree!

is no less off topic than "I agree!" on it's own.

So, care to answer the question however? What makes the image more than just a crater at low resolution with highly compressed image artifacts, the likes that are seen all over that area of the google earth image?

Or is it beneath you to expect an answer?

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:58 PM

Originally posted by elevenaugust
Here's a real view of the area, using the Clementine Basemap V2:

...and (what a surprise!) the "V" shaped artifact is not anymore visible.

Did you notice that your image was at maximum resolution by its pixelated state? The "anomaly" I posted was in a real small crater that would never have made it at your image's resolution. Clementine is digital and it really suffers when its images are magnified.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:58 PM
reply to post by Shadow Herder

Oh no, that just means there is a fleet of them up there... Waiting, to pounce on us.

I do hear tell Buzz Aldrin said they told them to gets off their property!!!!

No, I shouldn't jest... some people will now ... I ..
Oh what have I done

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:01 PM

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Here you guys go: that crater from the LROC:

Used the Lat and Log coordinates provided by the OP. Here's the source so you can zoom in and out:
Much higher resolution than anything from Google Earth at 0.5 meters per pixel.
edit on 5-3-2012 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)

Your link resulted in a blank, black page. I'd like to see what you are referring to so please repost.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:03 PM
Almost looks like light source on right, in the shadow you can pretty clearly see it is a raised pyramid shape. To me it looks like an opening and the lights are sort of "landing lights" leading inside (?)

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:07 PM
Below is the crater in question cropped straight from only high-res uncompressed image of the crater available from LROC. Dimension was not changed meaning you can calculate the size of crater to be around 150m in diameter (~180pixels wide x 0.83m/pixel according to image data). Nothing was edited except slight histogram shift for better contrast/light balance.

Depending on your imagination, you may see nothing, or you may see a buzz of activity in and around the crater. It only highlights the current issue with even the best lunar surface data available to public. It's hard to prove anything as artificial at these resolutions and without color. Of course, NASA could always one day release an image containing something really big that looked very artificial and sitting in the open. Assuming such thing existed and NASA had the image of it, which I doubt.

original version

rotated 180degree version (sometimes it gives different perspective for fresh look)

edit on 5-3-2012 by PINGi14 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:07 PM

Originally posted by verylowfrequency

Originally posted by Blaine91555

I downloaded the highest resolution DEM (digital elevation model) available just yesterday.

I can open the huge images on my graphics machine but not on my laptop. Google would never load if they used the available images.

Truly sad all the attention seekers blogging and posting this stuff on sites never seem to be willing to explain these things to people.

Since you have a graphics workstation and you downloaded the highest available resolution image, why did you not bother posting a blown up screen shot of the OP's crater to put an end to this discussion once and for all?

That would certainly be more convincing than your lecture about attention seekers unless you were just reminding yourself.

I'm at work. How would a 16 or 32 bit DEM file help? I only downloaded the medium color image to create a new diffuse map for a Moon 3D model where I use the DEM file to create the displacement layer to add accurate details to the surface. The IMG files you would find even more worthless. You can go and use the browser on the site though to zoom into the images there I think.

In the new more detailed color map there are still lots of irregularities from the strips of scans overlapping. It will take me many hours to fix all that by hand to make a useable diffuse map. I'm just trying to create a far more accurate Model for using in 3D images.

Link to high res Moon images, global maps and DEM's.

Have at it. the 256 pixel / degree .IMG file for the orthographic view is 3.2 gigs. You can use the cylindrical projection with a matching DEM file which is a tif (same site has them) but remember to use the 180degree rotation so they match up if you use them for a map.

My point is that this is still low resolution, even with the 3.2 gig images. The orthographic projection will be the best but finding a way to open an .IMG file is hard. PC's assume they are disk images. Google uses very low, way lower than this resolution images and no matter how much people want it, the interpolation from zooming creates false data.

Anyone here who has the interest can go to the same places I can and use their browsers and take screen grabs. I work until 9 PM tonight. My night manager has the day off. It would take me days to download the high res image here.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by PINGi14

Thank you. That should fill the need.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:15 PM
reply to post by The Shrike

Sure thing, let me post it here:

LROC Quick Map

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:33 PM
reply to post by The Shrike

Great find.This is the first one of these I have seen that I cannot dismiss. Is this the first time you have seen something like this? I just wonder if anybody else has saw a simular shape on the moon. Usually they are of cities or buildings and later found to be a hoax.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:34 PM

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Here you guys go, thought it would be fun to compare pictures. The left side is Google Earth, the Right side is LROC.

I tired to size up the craters as closely as possible, but it was very hard since Google's pic is no where near as detailed as LROC. Still, it's the very same area:

That is about all I need to see for a debunking.

Hoax bin?

I just saw your post.

Well it's certainly not up to me, but actually I'd have to say "No." on this.

"Hoax" means to create something with the intent to deceive others, and I don't think the OP was trying to do that. I believe instead, he was asking what people honestly think.

I personally think this's a problem with the images, and are not really structures or UFO's. And while I don't think that many structures could be air brushed out of the LROC images, I can not prove that they are not UFO's that have since flown away either, hehehehehe. (but I doubt that one too).

So maybe Grey Area or Highly Speculative forums? Or heck, just leave it here. I really don't think there is an intent to deceive, only discuss (unlike certain moon structure threads that were suppose to be photos from a certain Chinese probe...that I could mention....).

But not up to me. I'm happy to just go and find other photos of areas and provide them for people to compare and look at.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:24 PM

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Here you guys go, thought it would be fun to compare pictures. The left side is Google Earth, the Right side is LROC.

I tired to size up the craters as closely as possible, but it was very hard since Google's pic is no where near as detailed as LROC. Still, it's the very same area: snip

This effort on your part is what makes me glad I erred with my OP and I thank you. However, I've tried to go to the LROC :: ACT-REACT Quick Map website so that I could have found the photo you did but all I wind up getting is a blank, black page. Although when I click on the keys Ctrl and A, there is something in the blackness that is highlighted but I can't see it, it appears in the Google search box!

edit on 5-3-2012 by The Shrike because: To correct reply.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in