A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: Unnatural Features on Moon Surface

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by PINGi14
 


I will slightly agree with you.

Except: if it's a tower, it will give us a shadow, and knowing the time and date the LROC picture is taken, we can use trig to figure out the height of the object leaving a shadow.

By looking at the surrounding craters we can determine if the sun was directly overhead or not.

So while oblique views are great, they are not always needed. And beware of the "new, high resolution" Apollo pictures. Their resolution will still be limited by the focal length of the camera and the distance to the object. That's a law of optics you can't get around I'm afraid.



jra

posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
Has PINGi14 spit out what we're suppose to be looking for yet...


Nope, not yet, but we have the proper image catalogue number as well as the location on the Moon, so we're getting there... slowly.


Originally posted by PINGi14
I think you would know that it is near-impossible to discern any sense of height from aerial images taken vertically such as the LROC. A 1000 meter high tower would literally appear as a dot on LROC images.


Except that the Sun angle can give you an idea how tall/high something is. You can also create 3d topographic data with images of the same location taken at different view angles (if there happens to be multiple view angles of the location you want). And there is also the Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA) as well.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 



Has PINGi14 spit out what we're suppose to be looking for yet, or is this still a debate over how to save the picture and look at it "correctly" so we can all see the same optical illusion?


No. He is using his posts on ATS to drive traffic to his web pages, in violation of T&C.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
All I could find in the image was a human face in some of the rocks, but that's just pareidolia.

I spent about fifteen minutes looking, and it was all I could find out of the ordinary.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by PINGi14
 


If you read the thread there's some rumbling about your signature, and its self-promotion to your website. I don't recall anyone else here doing that, or at least as openly, but you may not have known that and it was an innocent mistake or something. Anyway, I'm not an admin, so I have no say, but, you know.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Closed for review.


19) Advertising: You will not advertise or promote other discussion boards, chat systems, online communities or other websites on the Websites within posts, private messages, avatars and/or signatures without prior written permission from TAN. You will not choose a username that is the same as a website domain, subdomain, URL, organization, or business for which you are associated. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account.


Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review
 

advertising links removed.
edit on Sun Mar 17 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Thanks mods for reopening the thread.



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by PINGi14
 


So, do we finally get circles, arrows, outlines, and descriptions of what you think you think you are thinking you are seeing?

.. or does the hokey pokey continue?



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


I will try to point out things that look interesting but I am tied up tonight so maybe tomorrow evening. Just got other things going on atm.



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by PINGi14
 


So, do we finally get circles, arrows, outlines, and descriptions of what you think you think you are thinking you are seeing?

.. or does the hokey pokey continue?



Well, from the thread, Superman2012 saw the superman symbol immediately in the middle of the crater. The talk is now if it is something the OP brought up with photoshop tecniques or if it is really there. That's my take on it anyway. So the question now is is it a bird, is it a plane, or is it, wait for it....



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   
What is this, the internet version of Punk'd? There's nothing out of the ordinary about the image, no matter which way you skin the cat, or how many times you skin the damn thing.

Come on man, this is the site that was hooked by the infamous "Belle 8-3-11" website. This is the best you've got?
edit on 3/18/2013 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   
The area in the OP photo has been very extensively photographed. The small, deep crater in the middle of the image is Sherrington. The dark grey area to the lower right of it the floor of the larger crater Langemak.

AS08-17-2744:


Google Moon view of the same area:


In addition to the Apollo 8 Hasselblad images (of which there were several), Apollo 14 took nearly two-dozen Hasselblad photos of the area, and Apollo 10 took some oblique views from the north. Better still, the Langemak area was under the ground track of both Apollo 15 & 17, and the area was extensively imaged by both the Mapping Camera and the even higher resolution Panoramic Camera. All of these images (there are dozens of them) are available in high-resolution with zoomable interface here.

Furthermore, this link talks about the significance of Langemak Crater and mentions that the area was mapped by the Clementine probe.

More recently, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has repeatedly imaged the entire area in very high resolution:


In the above image, the large, diagonal squares depict each frame taken by the Apollo Mapping Cameras (the Panoramic Cameras covered the whole scene). The narrow, vertical rectangles show the image footprints of LRO Narrow-Angle Camera scans.

As we can see, if there was anything to the OP's claim, corroborating evidence would be readily available for analysis. However, since the OP has completely failed to provide any support whatsoever for his sensationalist thread title (not even the traditional ATS over-zoomed, out-of-focus blobs of photographic grain
), and no one else in the last three pages has found anything "unnatural" in AS08-17-2744, I'm in favor of moving this thread to the "Hoax" section.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 



I'm in favor of moving this thread to the "Hoax" section.


I second the motion.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I am not in favour of the post being moved as the discussion is very relevant to the category

I have examined the high-resolution tiff image in some considerable depth and there are some very interesting features to be observed on the surface that are definitely not natural formations. I know many members on the forum will say that my recognition of certain features showing will be the result of misinterpretation or plain old pareidolia. I will post some images later highlighting some of the features I have observed.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
It's not really my intention to defend the OP.

However: the OP has yet to point anything out in the photo of theirs. They have asked for people to look at them. That in itself is not proof of a "hoax".

The other thing that I would like to point out is: Extensive photography, especially high resolution photography in itself does not lend to the fact that "nothing" is there.

Those pictures have to be examined. And not all of the LRO images have been examined:


The LRO Laboratory at Arizona State University currently employs a small pool of students and faculty to search the NAC images for interesting features, but the photographic data is accumulating far faster than the students' ability to keep up. It would take a very long time at the current rate to survey the entire lunar surface, so some form of automation is needed.


docs.google.com...

So the OP has asked us to look. Granted, they didn't point anything out, which is annoying, but not against the TC's. They also took a while to come around and ID the original photo and area, which again is annoying and can defeat a thread, but again, is not against the TC's nor makes it a hoax.

IMHO: saying a thread should go into the Hoax bin just because someone posted a picture, asking us to look at it, and it's an area that has been extensively photographed is a very bad thing to do. ATS depends on members providing content. Whether you agree with that content, like that content, or disagree and not like it is not the issue.
The issue is over policing the forum would make people shy away and not post anything for fear of being attacked, ridiculed, etc.

There are a LOT of things posted on ATS that make me roll my eyes, laugh, chuckle or fall of of my chair with disbelief at member's ignorance.

However, flaming, trolling and running ATS like a police state isn't the answer. The answer is actually very simple:

"If you have nothing nice or polite to say, then don't say it."

Stay off the "Reply" button to make those statements. Use the "Alert" button instead if you REALLY feel it's an issue.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


I respectfully disagree.


Originally posted by eriktheawful
ATS depends on members providing content. Whether you agree with that content, like that content, or disagree and not like it is not the issue.
The issue is over policing the forum would make people shy away and not post anything for fear of being attacked, ridiculed, etc.


No, the issue is that the OP has not provided any content other than the original image.
He has posted a picture of a couple thousand square miles of lunar surface, and invited us to find his needle in the haystack. That's not soliciting analysis - that's a "Where's Waldo"/Rorschach Test.


Originally posted by eriktheawful
The other thing that I would like to point out is: Extensive photography, especially high resolution photography in itself does not lend to the fact that "nothing" is there.


Nor do I claim any such thing. Your next statement and associated quote is quite on-point:


Originally posted by eriktheawful
Those pictures have to be examined. And not all of the LRO images have been examined:


The LRO Laboratory at Arizona State University currently employs a small pool of students and faculty to search the NAC images for interesting features, but the photographic data is accumulating far faster than the students' ability to keep up. It would take a very long time at the current rate to survey the entire lunar surface, so some form of automation is needed.


docs.google.com...


I look forward to the "I-think-I've-found-something..." threads because I do want something unnatural to be found there, and researching the available data to see if something really is there is fun.

The problem is that the OP steadfastly refuses to tell us where "there" is. I spent a good chunk of last night looking-up dozens of photos of the area, but that information is useless because I don't know which photo has the feature he wants us to examine, and he refuses disclose the information necessary to begin analysis.


Originally posted by eriktheawful
So the OP has asked us to look. Granted, they didn't point anything out, which is annoying, but not against the TC's. They also took a while to come around and ID the original photo and area, which again is annoying and can defeat a thread, but again, is not against the TC's nor makes it a hoax.


The OP "asked us to look" in the first post. In the 2 full days since then, he has posted 9 more times, with only one of those posts containing useful information (the photo ID). In the time it took him to write a simple paragraph, he could have used MSPaint to draw an arrow on a .png and upload it. He has not done so. Instead, he has been evasive and is stringing people along - alternating between perpetuating his guessing game and promising more info reeeeeal soon ("maybe tomorrow evening"). THIS pattern of behavior very strongly indicates a hoax.

I would like to be proven wrong (that is, with proof - not just denials that I might be right).


Originally posted by eriktheawful
IMHO: saying a thread should go into the Hoax bin just because someone posted a picture, asking us to look at it, and it's an area that has been extensively photographed is a very bad thing to do.


I whole-heartedly agree, which is why it's a good thing that what you describe bears no resemblance whatsoever to my reason for asking it to be moved to the "Hoax" bin. My argument is that there exists a wealth of data to analyze his claim, but he (despite many request from many members) refuses to provide the information necessary for us to use this data. In the face of this consistent, repeated evasive behavior, it seems reasonable (to me) to conclude that the OP does not want his claim analyzed and thus is not acting in good faith (i.e. he's yanking our chain). At least one other member agrees with me on this.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


While I don't disagree that the OP could be leading up to a hoax of some kind, the fact remains that the OP has not presented anything in the way of being false or misleading:

From the ATS Hoax! forum:


[HOAX!]: Dedicated forum for ATS threads that have been proven to be hoaxes, frauds, misrepresentations, part of deceptive schemes, or grossly errant theories/speculations on a variety of topics. Topics in this forum will range from those that have proven to be an actual hoax to those where a significant majority of ATS members believe the subject matter to be based on fraudulent material.


ATS opens up a bit more on the word "Hoax" than it's normal definition:


A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.


Wikipedia "Hoax"

So far, the OP has not posted anything that is a fabrication or a falsehood. They have not posted anything that is a fraud.
They have not made any grossly errant theories or speculations (yet).

Neither you, nor anyone else has proven that the OP's thread is a "part of deceptive schemes".

The only thing that you have proven is: The OP doesn't know how to make threads very well here on ATS yet, and from what I can tell, you can't judge a members behavior on a single thread, unless it's something very obvious (posting certain links, articles, etc that are known hoaxes).

Nor do you have a majority of members agreeing with you. You have a single individual that agreed with you.

You know my posting history. I tend to STRONGLY disagree with OPs that post "structures", "alien bases", etc, etc.
However, I don't tend to declare someone as something simply because they've not produced their evidence yet. I'd rather wait and see what it is they think they've found.

It's true, the OP is taking much too long to post anything else, and should have posted it in their OP. It's been suggested that they were not wanting to actually add content here, but were instead fishing for traffic on their web sites. The mods even locked the thread for review for that.

But they unlocked it. So the mods are satisfied, for now.

I'd rather give the OP a chance to finally post their findings so we can discuss it. If they don't, this thread will eventually fade into obscurity here on ATS and be forgotten. If they continue to bump it (as we are doing), then it will be obvious they are trolling for traffic still and should be alerted.

You can always hit that alert button and present you case to the mods about moving this thread to the hoax forum of course.

For all we know, the OP is simply very picky about what they post and want everything to be "just right", but allowed their enthusiasm to get the better of them, and so they actually started a poor thread.

Wouldn't you rather hear the person out? Or would you rather be quick to judge them as a hoaxer when it might not be the case?



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Your well-reasoned points are taken.

Thanks for talking me off of my high-horse.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I have no idea what the OP can see in the image as the member has not told us what he has found.

However, I have carried out some research of the image and have selected an area for further examination.

A context view is shown and various versions of the selected area are available at the Direct views below.

I have not highlighted any of the features as some of them would appear to be quite obvious as to what they are.

I wonder if the OP or any other members can see the features that are showing in the view.





Direct views:

i985.photobucket.com...

i985.photobucket.com...

i985.photobucket.com...

i985.photobucket.com...



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
One of the Direct views posted above would not link. Here is the corrected link.

i985.photobucket.com...





top topics
 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join