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

Originally posted by PINGi14
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Why would you assume there aren't interesting things on lunar surface that are large enough in size to be resolved on Hasselblad photos taken by Apollo astronauts.

Well if there WAS then why not look in greater detail using LRO images. Your Hasselblad image covers many square miles given an option would you not like to see your so called objects in an individual basis.

Even the Hubble can only resolve objects 300ft across on the Moon, LRO images are 50cm/pixel and low orbit images are 26cm/pixel.

So it's obvious WHY you and arianna DON'T want to use LRO images the reason is as clear as the images because they will prove you wrong.

Originally posted by PINGi14
Why do you care what image somebody wants to look at?

Because she asked us to care. Remember? When she asked for images that could answer her questions? That's asking people to care enough to find images.

Originally posted by PINGi14
Why do you insist on yelling and screaming as if your mother was insulted in the process?

That characterization is as bizarre as it is inaccurate and unwarranted. Actually, when I was typing it quietly, I was smiling and thinking of the tone of voice I use to tell my son (for the third time) to stop playing and help Daddy clean-up.

Originally posted by PINGi14
I can only laugh at your assumption that hasselblads are lowest resolution and therefore not as good as the other dataset.

It's not an assumption. It has been empirically and repeatedly demonstrated in this thread. Feel free to show me an example where an orbital Hasselblad image of the area in question has a higher resolution than the Metric, Panoramic or LRO cameras. Then you can laugh.

Originally posted by PINGi14
You are the one restricting yourself if you do not include hasselblads in your investigation.

Yeah, I should clarify that: The Hasselblads are definitely not useless. They make a good starting point for an investigation. With their wide fields-of-view, they can establish a geographic and geologic context for the area under study (especially if you use multiple sequential frames to make stereo pairs). And - as Arianna pointed-out - they can be a good source for oblique views.

However...

Because of the limits on resolution, the Hasselblad obliques are only useful for objects >1km across (roughly the size of the larger of the two craters in the pair we've been discussing, above). Also, once you start asking, "What's that white blob?" or "What's that linear feature?" then it's time to move-up to the higher-resolution imagery. You are the one restricting yourself if you do not include Metric, PanCam and LROCs in your investigation.

Like I said a few pages ago...

Originally posted by PINGi14
If anomalous or artificial features are suspected in a photograph of lunar surface, decision should be made whether to investigate it further. Proper investigation must include scouring the net for any and all Moon surface images showing area in question from every mission dataset from Ranger to LRO.

Then compare these different versions of the same area and try to reach some kind of conclusion. It takes a lot of time unfortunately.

I have nothing against LRO NAC or any other dataset.

Originally posted by PINGi14
Like I said a few pages ago...

Originally posted by PINGi14
If anomalous or artificial features are suspected in a photograph of lunar surface, decision should be made whether to investigate it further. Proper investigation must include scouring the net for any and all Moon surface images showing area in question from every mission dataset from Ranger to LRO.

Then compare these different versions of the same area and try to reach some kind of conclusion. It takes a lot of time unfortunately.

I have nothing against LRO NAC or any other dataset.

Well locate one of your objects on an LRO image then , arianna spoke about white dots on his picture they will most likely be craters so back to you .

Slightly off topic but to show that also take LROC NAC's seriously, here is a disc-like object found to be hiding within the shadows of following LRO NAC.

wms.lroc.asu.edu...





files.abovetopsecret.com...


You won't find that object by looking at the browser based view as all you will see is shadow but I can assure you that disc-like object is there. So take it from someone who put in the hours working with LRO NACs. Apollo Hasselblad scans are just as useful as LRO NACs, just in different ways.

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
Yeah, I should clarify that: The Hasselblads are definitely not useless. They make a good starting point for an investigation. With their wide fields-of-view, they can establish a geographic and geologic context for the area under study (especially if you use multiple sequential frames to make stereo pairs). And - as Arianna pointed-out - they can be a good source for oblique views.

Thanks. You hit the nail on the head. They are best for oblique view of large scale structures that would span the widths of many many LRO NAC strips and like you said to possibly establish a context for such feature which would be impossible with NAC's.

reply to post by PINGi14


Were on the LRO image is that object so we can check.

Originally posted by PINGi14

Thanks. You hit the nail on the head. They are best for oblique view of large scale structures that would span the widths of many many LRO NAC strips and like you said to possibly establish a context for such feature which would be impossible with NAC's.

Seriously YOU think a large scale structure would not show on the LRO images you can zoom out please explain why a large object on a Hasselblad image could not be seen for example on this



What exactly do you think these large scale objects are can you give some details

The Apollo oblique image sets should not be discounted because of their age. What many of these images have is something the LRO top-down images do not have and that is perspective.

I have been checking many of the NAC images for the area in question as well as other locations close by. The white dots referred in the images I posted above can be seen in many of the Apollo image sets and are also showing all over the place in the NAC views.

So what could these white dots possibly be if they are not craters. I have two possible answers. One, they could be solar cells, or two, they could be sources of artificial illumination. I think it more likely they are the latter. There is no possible way the white dots are craters as no shadows are being cast and there are literally thousands of them.

I spent last evening scanning the LRO images for this area and accidentally came across something quite unique and remarkable with regards to the lunar landscape that members may find of interest but I shall start a new thread concerning the features I found.

Originally posted by PINGi14
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Why would you assume there aren't interesting things on lunar surface that are large enough in size to be resolved on Hasselblad photos taken by Apollo astronauts.

Because we haven't seen any (if you mean artificial structures, or other signs of a civilisation). If there was such a large structure visible in Hasselblad images, the afore-mentioned mapping/panoramic/LRO images would have revealed them in great detail and clarity.

One example springs to mind, where there was a claim about a giant cigar-shaped spacecraft lying in a crater, and it really looked like there was one on the low-res photo. But LRO and even Apollo mapping/panoramic imagery shows it's just a fold in the terrain. I'll try to find the thread and images here on ATS.

P.S. ok, here's the thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...
What's interesting is that the claim was based on AS15-P-9625, taken from here: www.lpi.usra.edu...
However, the same AS15-P-9625 image is available at much higher resolution (and with better brightness and contrast) here: wms.lroc.asu.edu...
Zoom all the way in on that "spaceship" and you'll see that it's only a terrain feature, albeit an interesting one.

Originally posted by arianna


So what could these white dots possibly be if they are not craters. I have two possible answers. One, they could be solar cells, or two, they could be sources of artificial illumination. I think it more likely they are the latter. There is no possible way the white dots are craters as no shadows are being cast and there are literally thousands of them.

I spent last evening scanning the LRO images for this area and accidentally came across something quite unique and remarkable with regards to the lunar landscape that members may find of interest but I shall start a new thread concerning the features I found.

The white dots are craters if you bothered to actually zoom in on the LRO pictures you would see that instead of making up bs answers of what they could be!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

The white dots are craters if you bothered to actually zoom in on the LRO pictures you would see that instead of making up bs answers of what they could be!

I think you do not realise the reality of what you are seeing in the NAC image strips.

Take your time viewing the image strips and you may be amazed at what there is to discover.

reply to post by wildespace


I am sorry but I cannot agree with you about this particular image. I have looked at the high-resolution version of 9625 in some detail and it would appear that someone has done an cheap airbrush job on it. The low resolution image appears to be much better for showing up the detail of the surface objects. The object in question may not be a spacecraft but the objects to the right of it sure look like structures to me.

Here is the low-res version with a larger version at the Direct link.





Direct link:

i985.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008

The white dots are craters if you bothered to actually zoom in on the LRO pictures you would see that instead of making up bs answers of what they could be!

I think you do not realise the reality of what you are seeing in the NAC image strips.

Take your time viewing the image strips and you may be amazed at what there is to discover.

Prove it then get a white dot on your image that's on an LRO image and prove your point it's put up or shut up time

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wildespace

 

I am sorry but I cannot agree with you about this particular image. I have looked at the high-resolution version of 9625 in some detail and it would appear that someone has done an cheap airbrush job on it. The low resolution image appears to be much better for showing up the detail of the surface objects. The object in question may not be a spacecraft but the objects to the right of it sure look like structures to me.

Here is the low-res version with a larger version at the Direct link.

Direct link:

i985.photobucket.com...

The sun was not in the same position for all the shot's you blame it on an airbrush you don't seem to look at images as close as you think do you

Here is a close view crop of the surface object detail showing in the image AS15-P-9625.

I know that the image being dealt with here is only a low-resolution version but there is sufficient resolution to make a valid evaluation of the object detail. The view is to the right of the shape that appears to be a spacecraft. I will leave it to members to make up their own mind whether the shapes showing in the image are natural formations or signs of artificiality.

If there was a high-resolution version showing the same detail that would be more than interesting.

reply to post by arianna



The shape DOESN'T appear to be a spacecraft it's OBVIOUS to anyone its not a space craft

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

The LRO image of the area ,instead of being vague to try to reinforce what you think you see why don't you just say and indicate the area.

If fact here is the link wildespace gave a few posts before AS15-P-9625 if you look you can download various versions from 1.1 mb up to a 6.4 gb jpeg2000 version if you want.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by arianna

 

The shape DOESN'T appear to be a spacecraft it's OBVIOUS to anyone its not a space craft

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

The LRO image of the area ,instead of being vague to try to reinforce what you think you see why don't you just say and indicate the area.

If fact here is the link wildespace gave a few posts before AS15-P-9625 if you look you can download various versions from 1.1 mb up to a 6.4 gb jpeg2000 version if you want.

edit on 27-3-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

You may be correct about the shape not being a spacecraft but there is a very similar shaped carving on a lintel in Egypt. There are also carvings of other ancient craft on the same lintel. Could there be a link between the moon and what is showing on the lintel in Egypt?

I have examined this area in some depth and have found that there is something far more intriguing within the confines of the shape and in the immediate areas adjacent to it.

The smudged high-resolution image AS15-P-9625 is perfectly adequate to make a positive evaluation of what is really on the surface at this location but you may have to enhance the image to find out.

Originally posted by arianna

The smudged high-resolution image AS15-P-9625 is perfectly adequate to make a positive evaluation of what is really on the surface at this location but you may have to enhance the image to find out.

Your as bad as the OP , smudged is good to you, don't think so I can see whats in the picture rocks,dust and craters.

Things are starting to get interesting. If there was an array of non-natural looking objects on lunar surface, would that increase the chance that it could be of artificial origin? What criteria determines if the object array is just repeating patterns on rocks of natural origin? The resolution of the image linked is about 20m/pixel. That makes each circular looking object about 200m in diameter.

No, I didn't randomly pick out that boxed area and stumble upon the object and no I didn't manipulate any individual pixels. This is just one example 'artificial' looking structures found to be arranged in repeating pattern during testing of my algorithm. So another exclusive preview for ATS.



For LRO NAC worshippers, no it was not conclusively found in LRO NAC images of the area. Does that mean the object does not exist? I can not say for sure. All I'm going to say is LRO only has vertical top-down view of the area and this photo is taken at highly oblique angle.

Apollo 15 metric camera has slightly oblique picture of the area at (wms.lroc.asu.edu...) and it is being analyzed for possible secondary confirmation.


Probably 99.9% unrelated but the shape of those circles kind of reminded me of this man made object.

reply to post by PINGi14

Things are starting to get interesting. If there was an array non-natural looking objects on lunar surface, would that increase the chance that it could be of artificial origin?

No. "non-natural looking is not the same thing as artificial. There are indeed man-made objects on and around the Moon. That does not mean that the Moon is man-made.

What criteria determines if something is just randomly repeating patterns on rocks?

Which is it? Random or a pattern?

Please explain what you think you see in the photo you have posted. Also, how you distinguish actual objects from the grain of the film.

reply to post by PINGi14


What pattern are you talking about? I can see no pattern in your image. If you mean the two white spots next to each other, they are most likely small craters.

It would take a lot more to conclude that what one sees is an array of artificial-looking objects.

P.S. I think I see now what you're talking about. Giving the low resolution and your post-processing, they are undoubtedly image artifacts. In addition to your circular things, I can see vertical lines and some other patterns. In fact, having looked at the rest of the image, I think it's the result of stitching the panoramic image. I may be wrong. But my point is, if there were arrays of artificial objects on the Moon, they would look clearer than the barely-visible patters which you bring out with image processing.