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: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
The LROC images leave a lot to be desired as the detail on the lunar surface at 0.5m/pixel cannot be clearly recognized. The only way to get some idea of what is really on the surface is to enhance an image. I know this goes against the grain with many members, but it is the only way to reveal what cannot be easily seen in the original image.

Have a look at the image below as the 'monolithic' feature is plainly visible. What is more important is the object detail on the surrounding area. A larger view (1000 pixels wide) is available at the Direct link. The image has been darkened intentionally.






Direct link for the larger view.

i985.photobucket.com...




posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


How about getting back to your OWN unfinished threads before post more butchered images on other threads!



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Yes, all in good time.

With respect wmd_2008, why do you have to make snide comments instead of commenting on the subject matter. Your pompus attitude towards me in this thread and other threads is not helpful.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Yes, all in good time.

With respect wmd_2008, why do you have to make snide comments instead of commenting on the subject matter. Your pompus attitude towards me in this thread and other threads is not helpful.



Well concentrate on your own thread you made claims which you haven't backed up, now you are trying to muddy the waters in another thread with your usual bs claims of what you and only you think you show with images !!!



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I do not have to take this rubbish from you. I am not trying to muddy any waters but trying to see through those muddy waters. If I wish to contribute in another thread with what I consider to be information relevant to the topic in hand, I will do so. That is my perogative. Yes, the image I posted above is an enhancement of the view that was posted earlier in the thread. What can be seen in the earlier image does not reveal very much object detail, but the enhancement does. The large object in question would appear to be a very large rock in the original capture but if you look closely at the enhancement it would appear to take on the form of a very large structure. There are also other clues. Take note of the towers to the immediate right of the large object. If you study the darker areas carefully you will notice there are many other smaller structures showing.

Now, I know everyone is going to shout from the rooftops that what I am projecting is impossible. Built structures on the lunar surface you may say. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, and not just a few. If you have done any in-depth exploration of the object detail on the lunar surface using the Apollo and LROC images you would know that there are thousands, if not millions of built structures in many areas. What do you think all those tiny pin-pricks of light are in the darker LROC images? Could these bright pin-pricks possibly be sunlight reflecting off of rocks, I think not. So who could have built all of these structures on the lunar surface and from observing a large amount of their surface artwork where could this human-looking species have come from? Could they possibly be related to our ancient ancestors? These questions I will leave open for another thread as I do not wish to derail the subject matter being discussed here.

Getting back to the subject of the large object or 'monolith' as some members are calling it. Personally, I do not think it is a rock formation or 'monolith', but a very large built structure as it has definite form. If members have any problems recognizing the structural shapes in the enhanced image I will endeavour to produce a closer view.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


You are not enhancing anything I'm afraid. What you are doing is introducing false data into an image, and then presenting it as something real.

What you are doing is the same as taking a actual statement that someone made:

"The brown dog ran around the house and up the road."

and are distorting it by adding things (false data) that was not actually in the original statement:

"The brown and fat dog ran around and through the house and up the dirt road."

So yes people on here are going to "shout from the roof tops" that you are not helping but are instead distorting the facts of what is or is not in the pictures.

If you want to "prove" that your "enhancements" are not doing this, then you will need to use this "enhancement" that you use with something that is familiar to people and terrestrial in nature, such as taking a picture of objects both far away and close up, then use your "enhancements" (listing EXACTLY what you did with your photoshop program) and show how the "enhanced" picture looks like or close to the photo taken of the objects at close range.

You could use Google Earth, capture an image above a famous landmark at the same pixel resolution as the LROC, then do your "enhancements", listing step by step to us what you do, and then show it to us.

Until you do this, yes, the majority of us are going to simply shake our heads and say that all you are doing is introducing false data into the images and that is what you are "enhancing" and bringing out.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


The enhancement procedure I use does not produce false data but only changes the numerical value of individual pixels. For instance, when using the 'burn' tool a group of pixels that are a shade of light grey may change to a shade to mid-grey and mid-grey pixels may change to a darker grey. Changing the shades of grey does not introduce false data.

There is no need to use a Google Earth view as you suggested as there is enough data showing in the original lunar image to make a reasonable enhancement.

Shown below is an animation in which I have used a crop from the contrast-adjusted original, as posted above, and the enhancement. You will probably notice by comparison that nothing false has been introduced in the enhancement process. If anything, the enhancement process has made the view much clearer so that surface objects can be more easily identified.





.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace

Aha! The best image yet, M140237118RC (0.489 m/p resolution)
Sun is overhead, so almost no shadow, but the great resolution shows it to be nothing but a big rock.




Well since we have a resolution for the picture and using G.I.M.P or Photoshop image software guess what we can measure the ROCK its around 26 pixels at the widest point so that works out at around 12.7 mtr not as big as some would claim on here and certainly not a building.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


If, as you say, you are not adding false data to the image, then you have absolutely nothing to fear by doing the same thing with a familiar terrestrial image or famous land mark. Nothing to fear at all, and it would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to everyone here on ATS, that you are right, and we are wrong.

Asking us to take your word for it will not be good enough here on ATS I'm afraid. Otherwise I and others on here will continue to point out that you are not enhancing anything in the lunar photos, but are in fact distorting the images, and presenting false evidence.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Order in the Thread.



For purposes of this thread I would like it if we ALL could stick with original images that have been enhanced only by adjustments to brightness, contrast, and they may be cropped or enlarged. I hope you ALL will understand that ATS values the opinions of ALL it's memberships.

Even the top scientists in the world today cannot agree on the origins of the moon. That means it is safe to speculate on the origins of the moon in this thread.

So far I have been very careful about making any big claims about this one feature on Mons Hansteen. This unbiased, scientific question remains open to ALL : How did these rocks come to be located in the precise locations?



What do the scientists say about Mons Hansteen? They say it is shaped like a triangle, it is a Red Spot, one of few Red Spots on the moon, it is claimed to be a volcanic silicate mound which post dates the neighboring craters, yet it clearly has a population of impact craters which some scientists can claim to date it.

When we look at the Mons Hansteen triangle there is a feature at the very heart of the triangle. When we drill down on that feature we found these rocks that are as of yet unexplained. I guess the purpose of this thread is to explain those rocks and gain a consensus opinion about it.




posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Order in the Thread.




How did these rocks come to be located in the precise locations?



SERIOUSLY what is precise about it



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Well erik, you provide the terrestrial image with reference information and I will apply the process.

BTW, could you possibly point out where the false data is in the animation or the enhanced image I posted as the enhacement is showing a much clearer view of the surface features which can be observed and verified in the contrast-adjusted original?



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Well since we have a resolution for the picture and using G.I.M.P or Photoshop image software guess what we can measure the ROCK its around 26 pixels at the widest point so that works out at around 12.7 mtr not as big as some would claim on here and certainly not a building.


How do you know the large object is not a building? I would ask that you take a closer look at the enhanced version and you will see that by the side of the large object are some smaller objects just to the right of it with what would appear to be towers of some description. My own personal view is that the large object is a building of some description.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


It's worth a shot asking the LRO team, as well as on forums like UnmannedSpaceflight.com.

So far, my guesses is that it may be small volcanic plugs, or simply chunks of hard lava rock exposed through erosion. www.geology.sdsu.edu...

P.S. a nearby location (still at Mons Hansteen) has even more dramatic rocks and shadows (although probably due to the impact that produced the crater visible here): permalink


edit on 4-7-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


I've followed the thread with interest, and there is clearly a divergence of opinion here between people such as yourself, who are attaching some sort of significance to the specific location and form of rocks on a feature, and others, like myself, who are of the opinion that the rocks are there because the rocks are there.

My main point of replying here, however, is to suggest that you take more care to read and interpret what scientific research is saying. You make the point in a couple of posts that 'science' describes Mons Hansteen as triangular, but you yourself make that description. 'Triangle' is not a scientifically derived statement of significance, it is merely descriptive. It clearly is broadly triangular and has no real significance. Indeed the more closely you zoom in on it, the less triangular it is. It's like trying to attach some significance to the shape of Sicily.

Another point is that just because science has not reached an overwhelming consensus on the origin of the moon, this does not mean that such a consensus is unreachable or that the origin of the moon is forever inexplicable. Sooner or later there will be sufficient data for one theory to explain them better than all the others.

Science doesn't just make this stuff up, it takes data and sees what theories can explain that data. Picking out a single feature, describing it as a monolith and attaching significance to it with no evidence other than subjective interpretation based on personal belief is pretty much making it up.

The temporal sequence of Mons Hansteen and the surrounding features is based on relatively simple principles. It is superimposed on a large plain and composed of a different material from it, so it must therefore be younger than it. Impact craters on Mons Hansteen must be younger than Hansteen itself. Crater Billy is filled with the same material as the wider plain, and therefore must be older than all of them. The timescales involved are deduced from mathematical models, isotopic composition of samples of returned material, and understanding of equivalent terrestrial processes.

As for it being a 'monolith', it is and it isn't. It is a single piece of rock, which satisfies the literal definition. It is not, however, a narrow vertically aligned pillar crafted by some unknown hand. It is self-evidently as wide as it is tall, and unevenly shaped. It has vertical and sloped sides in no particular geometric pattern or order. Repeatedly calling it a monolith and hoping it will stick reminds me a little of the Simpsons episode where the town is persuaded to buy a monorail by the simple process of repeating the word often enough until they buy into it.

On this much I agree with you: photographs should not be over-treated. There is a fine line between 'enhancement' and adding jpeg artifacts by overdoing the level adjustment, sharpening and so on. I have been a photoshop user for 15 years and more, and know plenty about how to use it to manipulate images. There comes a point in any image enhancement where you have to recognise that you have started to deteriorate the image's quality and reduce its information content. Below is my own interpretation. I've increased the dpi to 300, adjusted the levels and sharpened it slightly.

img23.imageshack.us...




posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 06:33 AM
link   
It would appear that nearly everyone commenting in this thread are of the opinion that the large feature is a rock. From a distance viewpoint I have to agree with the concensus. It does appear to be just that - a large rock. It is only when we move in closer that what we think is a large rock could well be something else.

The enhancement process I used has not destroyed any data nor has it introduced new data. All the process has done is change the numerical value of individual pixels by use of the burn tool within the Photoshop application. What can be seen in the enhanced image can also be seen in the original contrast-adjusted image, but not as clear.

The animation provided below is a closer view and I have arrowed some of the objects that are clearly recognizable as possible built structures. If you consider the features I have arrowed could not possibly be structures then what other explanation could there possibly be for these particular shapes?






posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


All I see is lighter and darker areas (drastically enhanced by your processing) which correspond to the topography and geological makeup of the surface. The scale suggests that they are fairly small, a few meters across. I certainly don't see any buildings. A building would be fairly clearly visible on the LRO images, as 0.5 m/p is a good resolution for that, and the shadows, as well as flat roofs, would make them noticeable. If those are buildings, they are trying extremely hard to look like rocks.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
 

The animation provided below is a closer view and I have arrowed some of the objects that are clearly recognizable as possible built structures. If you consider the features I have arrowed could not possibly be structures then what other explanation could there possibly be for these particular shapes?



Usually, we can consider ourselves lucky if we find one or two distinct features in a certain area, in this case it would be the large rock and the long shadow mentioned in the OP.

The fact, though, that you see countless shapes & anomalies in every picture (examples here & here) - where, by the way, nobody else sees anything special - should make you think about what you 'think' you are seeing ...

While I do encourage people to look & search for anomalies on Mars & Moon imagery - for we might have overlooked an important formation or feature - I do see a certain repeating 'scheme' in your approach.

No offense intended, but perhaps you should consider a different method for your observations ...

edit on 4-7-2013 by jeep3r because: text



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Well erik, you provide the terrestrial image with reference information and I will apply the process.

BTW, could you possibly point out where the false data is in the animation or the enhanced image I posted as the enhacement is showing a much clearer view of the surface features which can be observed and verified in the contrast-adjusted original?



I'm afraid that you'll have to talk about this either in another thread you create or one of your existing threads as the OP has asked:




For purposes of this thread I would like it if we ALL could stick with original images that have been enhanced only by adjustments to brightness, contrast, and they may be cropped or enlarged. I hope you ALL will understand that ATS values the opinions of ALL it's memberships.


So no, I will not be providing you with any images for you to "enhance".



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Let's just ignore ariana's "anomalies" and concentrate on the explanation for the big rocks at that location. Here's what seems to be a very knowlegeable reply at Unmanned Spaceflight forum:


Hansteen rocks are different than most normal basaltic moon rocks. Check out: Hawke et al., JGR 108 (2003), E7,5069. www.spudislunarresources.com...

This region has rocks that are unusual in that they are made of dacite, which is much more silica-rich lava than basalt. Dacite is a superfine-grained form of granodiorite. Since there is less manganese and iron in the chemical makeup of silica-rich lavas, the silicate-molecule tetrahedrons aren't as bound up by metal ions, so the silica units cling to each other more. (At least that is the simple explanation I have in my head). As a result, the silica-rich lavas are lumpy and flow like toothpaste. The more basaltic lavas are more runny and flow like maple syrup. Dacite and the even more silica-rich rhyolite (superfine-grained granite) form steep-sided plug domes. The plug dome in Mt. St. Helens formed in the 1980's was dacite.

Other good candidates for silica-rich volcanic constructs on the Moon are : Marian domes, Oceanus Procellarum [41.4 N, 48 E]; Hansteen alpha, Oceanus Procellarum [12.3 S, 51 W]; Mons Gruithuisenen, Mare Imbrium [36.3 N, 40 W], and Compton-Belcovich Farside [61 N, 99.5 E].

If you poke around those areas, you'll also find some features that look like lumpy big-bouldered plug domes remnants. There is a great example of a big boulder pile just S of Beta dome in the Compton-Belkovic complex.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join