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.

 

Mons Hansteen monolith casts >100m shadow on the Moon

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by arcnaver

Originally posted by billdadobbie
reply to post by abeverage
 

thanks never knew about eros temple


Why do mysterious objects on other planetary bodies always have to be "temples" or "monoliths"? Why cant they be 7-Elevens or Walmarts or just a house?
edit on 26-6-2013 by arcnaver because: (no reason given)



Why can't they be an observation of something like a scanning droid on Hoth




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by wrkn4livn

Yes, and with no wind, water on the moon, the structures could be millions or billions of years old.


In the case of Mons Hansteen, the volcanic extrusion mound, it is said (according to scientific studies) to be of a younger age than those 2 very large craters that border it.. Craters Hansteen and Billy.

Mons Hansteen is also dotted with small impact craters, steep slopes with rock slides and large areas of what appears to be a typically smooth lunar regolith blanket. It would be interesting to know if somebody has already done an official crater count on this silica-based volcanic mound.

If the monolithic rock were deposited in it's present location as a result of a local crater ejecta or maybe a medium-distance impact/ejecta event, the monolithic rock would also show traces of having a discernable crater around it. But it does not. We would have detected a subtle crater in the various LRO/NAC images.

I am saying that the monolithic rock is not an example of crater ejecta from a local or medium-range crater impact.

The monolithic rock is local to the local basin and must be related, somehow, to the rock slides (which in some images appears to be a dark volcanic vent) but images have shown there is no deep "vent" here only a small basin with rock slides and steep slopes.

So there has to be some explanation as to how this monolithic rock became positioned at the crest of a mound which is adjacent to a basin and within a zone of steep slopes and rock slides.

I also think that erosion is out of the question in the positioning of this rock. But Ancient Astronauts are not automatically ruled out!



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastStarfighter
Why can't they be an observation of something like a scanning droid on Hoth


The scientists also tell us that the moon is anywhere from 3 to 4 billion years old (very rough estimates) and they (the bloody scientists) have proposed even 4 or 5 or more different competing theories about the origins of the moon.

What that means is that science cannot answer the questions about the moon's origins.

The scientists also tell us that the Mons Hansteen "Arrowhead" anomaly is a volcanic extrusion mound highly concentrated with silica which has been claimed even in scientific papers! to resemble "a triangle."

For many years we were told that the moon was dead and had no water. Ok. Now it has water.

And maybe the moon isn't dead either.

Like all trades, industries and professions, science itself is populated with fakers and charlatans, lifers, geeks, nerds, self promoters and show offs, dedicated bureaucrats, cult-like thinkers and well paid psychopathic sycophants, liars and religious freaks, patriotic pawns, all with different motives and dare I include... those few scientists who actually seek to obtain scientific glory? by throwing science on it's head?
Maybe I left some group out this list.

Well what about the fringe scientists? The moon could be a hollowed out Death Star for all we know.

(End of my silly little anti-science establishment rant.)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Wildespace had posted this image earlier in the thread. What I simply did was add more contrast to it. This is M140237118RC. I think it helps to emphasize the position of the monolithic rock and the downward elevated slope to the immediate East.




posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowLink
Nothing more than an oblong rock sitting vertically on top of a hill.

Obelix will sure go ga-ga over this find!



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Well, if the whole area is an extrusive volcanic feature, then this monolith is probably also extrusive in nature (meaning, pushed up from the interior, hence no impact crater). The less rigid material around it eroded and slid down the slope, while the more rigid monolith remained standing.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by smurfy
 


Even if it was on a flat surface would there not be a need to have a known entity, like a bus or Nelson's pillar nearby to make an accurate height calculation from a shadow?
Nope. Not if we know the elevation of the Sun above the local horizon. In this case it would be about 27º.
But with a slope you can't do it...unless you know the angle of the slope.



edit on 6/25/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


We need to investigate closer!

This thing could be either 2ft tall or 50, and judging by the straight edges on it, I find it fascinating.

I'm trying to get the word Obelisk out of my head but it just gets louder and louder. Make it go away Phage!


The real problem on here with images from the Moon & Mars many members zoom in to much, all digital images are made from pixels which guess what have straight edges even a circle is made of straight edges when you zoom in to a great level.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by PINGi14
How To Calculate Height of Moon Objects Like A Pro


I think that I probably did some very bad math there.
The elevation was done according to the line tool on quick map as was suggested. I don't really believe that the slope is -43 meters.



Monolithic rock Height = Shadow_Length * Tan [(90º - Incidence_Angle) + Slope_in_Degrees]
Monolithic rock Height = 120m * Tan [(90º - 62.7º) + xxº]
Monolithic rock Height = 120m * Tan[27.3+xx]

Slope_in_Degrees, xx according to my math, was calculated as -43/120 = Arctangent(-3.58) = -1.29

Monolithic rock Height = 120m * Tan [27.3 + -1.29]
Monolithic rock Height = 120m * Tan [26.01 and I rounded it down to 26.00]
Monolithic rock Height = 120m * 1.178
Monolithic rock Height = 141.36m?

help?



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
Well, if the whole area is an extrusive volcanic feature, then this monolith is probably also extrusive in nature (meaning, pushed up from the interior, hence no impact crater). The less rigid material around it eroded and slid down the slope, while the more rigid monolith remained standing.


I was originally thinking that too. But if it were true, I would have expected to see a much larger population of these 15-20m diameter ancient volcanic tube structures, like this one, situated around the "vents", small basins, and the other rockslide areas.

We are only asking ourselves, informally, this question: How did that monolithic rock finally arrive at that precise location? What other ideas do you have?

I have already read some of the background papers on Mons Hansteen and the common theme among them is that they are working with spectral analysis only. They don't have any samples of this material to work with.

And the scientists are not definitive... the papers that have come out on Mons Hansteen are highly theoretical but detailed observations on the available data. That's all they have. Highly educated guesstimates!



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by PINGi14
How To Calculate Height of Moon Objects Like A Pro


I think that I probably did some very bad math there.
The elevation was done according to the line tool on quick map as was suggested. I don't really believe that the slope is -43 meters.



Monolithic rock Height = Shadow_Length * Tan [(90º - Incidence_Angle) + Slope_in_Degrees]
Monolithic rock Height = 120m * Tan [(90º - 62.7º) + xxº]
Monolithic rock Height = 120m * Tan[27.3+xx]

Slope_in_Degrees, xx according to my math, was calculated as -43/120 = Arctangent(-3.58) = -1.29

Monolithic rock Height = 120m * Tan [27.3 + -1.29]
Monolithic rock Height = 120m * Tan [26.01 and I rounded it down to 26.00]
Monolithic rock Height = 120m * 1.178
Monolithic rock Height = 141.36m?

help?


All looks fine just flip the calc to deg mode from rad.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by PINGi14
All looks fine just flip the calc to deg mode from rad.


The slope computation is messing me up. I'm still not sure about the -43m that was the output given by the line tool.
Slope_in_Degrees calculated as -43/120 = Arctangent(-3.58) = -74.393º

Monolithic rock Height = Shadow_Length * Tan [(90º - Incidence_Angle) + Slope_in_Degrees]

If I leave out the Slope_in_Degrees and look at it as a flat surface,

Monolithic rock Height = 120m * Tan [27.3]
Monolithic rock Height = 120m * Tan [27.3]
Monolithic rock Height = 120m * .516
Monolithic rock Height = 61.92m



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   
2001: a space odyssey is real =eh?



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


I should've finished my Calculus/analytic geometry class!! lmao, but holy camoley! 200ft!?



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Bumping for further ATS peer review.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I've had a look at the LROC images associated with these surface objects and have determined that there is more on the surface than can be seen in the images posted here. At first, I thought the larger object was a rock feature, but now I am not so sure after examining the detail in the above contrast-adjusted image. The darker area in this image is full of surprises that are not directly apparent in the lighter version.

To see the detail you will have to download the image and 'clean' it a little before a more reasonable visual assessment can be made. I have enhanced the image as seen above and I can assure members that there are some very interesting shapes to view, that in my opinion, would not appear to be rocks. Of course I could be completely wrong, but in this particular case I think there is a good possibility that my evaluation of what the surface objects may possibly be is correct.

Also, could it possibly be that in an ancient time people from Mars landed on the moon and brought with them all the necessary equipment for survival and to establish a colony on the lunar surface?

I would ask members not to dimiss this area as I have viewed some amazing objects and other features in an area not far from this particular site.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Try a longer line along the path of shadow so that more data points are used and maybe that will give better idea of of the slope. Your line length of 120m was too short to give an accurate reading due to limitation in dataset resolution. I would say 600m would be bare minimum acceptable length as there may be 2-3 data points along that line. Longer line = more data points = higher accuracy

This link below has some more info on the dataset used by line elevation tool in quickmap.
wms.lroc.asu.edu...
edit on 30-6-2013 by PINGi14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by LastStarfighter
Why can't they be an observation of something like a scanning droid on Hoth


The scientists also tell us that the moon is anywhere from 3 to 4 billion years old (very rough estimates) and they (the bloody scientists) have proposed even 4 or 5 or more different competing theories about the origins of the moon.

What that means is that science cannot answer the questions about the moon's origins.

The scientists also tell us that the Mons Hansteen "Arrowhead" anomaly is a volcanic extrusion mound highly concentrated with silica which has been claimed even in scientific papers! to resemble "a triangle."

For many years we were told that the moon was dead and had no water. Ok. Now it has water.

And maybe the moon isn't dead either.

Like all trades, industries and professions, science itself is populated with fakers and charlatans, lifers, geeks, nerds, self promoters and show offs, dedicated bureaucrats, cult-like thinkers and well paid psychopathic sycophants, liars and religious freaks, patriotic pawns, all with different motives and dare I include... those few scientists who actually seek to obtain scientific glory? by throwing science on it's head?
Maybe I left some group out this list.

Well what about the fringe scientists? The moon could be a hollowed out Death Star for all we know.

(End of my silly little anti-science establishment rant.)



Davide Icke already outlined the story that the moon is hollow and controlling us ten to fifteen years ago



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by PINGi14
 



Try a longer line along the path of shadow so that more data points are used and maybe that will give better idea of of the slope.


I am hesitating to do that because, if, as you say, there are only a few data points within a 600m line, I don't see the point in guessing the slope at all.

What do you really think? I'm going to make a guess on the dimensions of the base, 15m x 15m.
Monolithic rock Height = 61.92m



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
So much we dont know...its going to be so fun learning.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:55 AM
link   
The QuickMap provides custom and "autofit" dynamic range sclaing, which allows for more detail to be seen, without tampering with the image in photoshop. Here's the monolith with "autofit" range scaling, which I think shows more detail than in images posted so far:



x2 resize


Looks like a big rock to me, although engaging pareidolia and imagination makes it look like a giant sitting statue with its left arm raised, and its head possibly broken off and lying nearby.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join