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: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


. 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.



As everyone can clearly see (image by onebigmonkey)

img23.imageshack.us...

A big rock, as for your towers that rock is just over 12mtrs across, could bright dots in dark areas be rocks of course they could it all depends on the sun angle and the height of those rocks in a dark area.

As for your other picture with the arrows the things you are pointing to are smaller than the rock.

I will now give you an image please use your enhancement process on it and tell us what you see.

If your process works this will prove or disprove lets see what you do






posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I will take a look at the image you have provided on condition that you provide the reference information so that I can to check it out for myself. The image provided by onebigmonkey is unfortunately full of compression artefacts and is a very poor closeup view. It's a pity that the image was not 'cleaned' before posting.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I will take a look at the image you have provided on condition that you provide the reference information so that I can to check it out for myself. The image provided by onebigmonkey is unfortunately full of compression artefacts and is a very poor closeup view. It's a pity that the image was not 'cleaned' before posting.



First you can see onebigmonkey's image is a rock, as for the other image do your process make your comments on what you find then I will post the link to find the image location so that every one can check



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



I will now give you an image please use your enhancement process on it and tell us what you see.


No. How about you take a look at these images of Mons Hansteen anomalies and start making some objective scientific responses about Mons Hansteen anomolies.

As a matter of fact I was making these images just the last couple of days because there is really no need to look very far on Mons Hansteen for some very interesting stuff within a 2km radius of the central "vent". There is also no need to use anything more exotic than brightness, contrast, some enlargement and some cropping. Arrows and boxes are OK!


The difficult part is the interpretation. As you know, even the scientists can't agree on origins of the Moon. It is therefore completely appropriate for a web forum to discuss the origins of the Moon. It is appropriate to post content, discuss content and to totally refrain from behavior that interferes with a normal processing of the content.

Another important idea. And you probably realize this, there have been no sample returns from any of the Red Spot areas on the moon, including Mons Hansteen. The scientists themselves are using very limited, but sophisticated, spectrograms, histograms, etc, to decipher the Mons Hansteen "Arrowhead" volcanic extrusion.

Science is as much about the theory and speculation as it is about the hard numbers. Sometimes, I think too many people are treating science too much like a religion. As if, any random scientist can publish a "probable" theory with some "limited" data and it's just accepted as a giant step forward for mankind. Well, it aint all that.

Now for some fun images of interesting things on Mons Hansteen that are no more than 2km from the central "vent".

That is the only real requirement of this thread! Please everyone feel free to explore beyond 2km on Mons hansteen because I know there is at least one another 120m monolithic shadow rock but I'm still working on that.









posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I will take a look at the image you have provided on condition that you provide the reference information so that I can to check it out for myself. The image provided by onebigmonkey is unfortunately full of compression artefacts and is a very poor closeup view. It's a pity that the image was not 'cleaned' before posting.



First you can see onebigmonkey's image is a rock, as for the other image do your process make your comments on what you find then I will post the link to find the image location so that every one can check


From a distance, I have to agree that the large object on Mons Hansteen does give one the impression that it is a large rock. The image posted by onebigmonkey does not do it justice. Due to the work I have done on this view I am firmly of the opinion that it not a geological formation. I made mention about the observation of two towers adjacent to the large object which can be clearly seen in the enhanced view. Now, here's the big question, what would towers such as these be doing on the lunar surface when the scientific establishment inform us that there is no living species in residence on the lunar surface? The objects I have arrowed in the animation posted above are smaller that the large object but some of them have definite geometrical form - not what one would expect for a hostile and barren heavenly body.

I thought that by providing enhanements of this particular area would help in making a more positive evaluation of the surface objects but it would appear that the current mind-set and thinking is that the objects are just rocks. It would seem that whenever someone tries to project a different approach when exploring the downloadable NASA images whether they be the Apollo or LROC views that any deviation away from the presented material is not acceptable. I am of the opinion, from what I am discovering in the enhanced views, that the scientific world is being economical with the truth in relation to what is really on the lunar surface.

I have had a look at the sample image you have provided and I can tell you that under the white smudge are some very interesting features. In fact, what I am finding in the view is what I would describe as being a 'magcal' landscape. I will start another thread covering enhancements as it would not be fair to SayonoraJupiter to interrupt this thread with a completely different topic.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


If you found interesting things on Mons Hansteen, especially those features what are close (1-5km) to the central "vent" area and the monolithic rock, you are welcome to post some of your findings in this thread.

Remember, there is more than 1 view for the monolithic rock and "vent" area.

Here are the NAC images covering that area [Thanks to wildespace from page 1] please note that some of these images require to be 'flipped' so that the orientation of the distinguishable features are matched up correctly.

wms.lroc.asu.edu...
wms.lroc.asu.edu...
wms.lroc.asu.edu...
wms.lroc.asu.edu...
wms.lroc.asu.edu...
wms.lroc.asu.edu...



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:59 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


SaonaraJupiter, thanks for posting the links as they may be of benefit to visitors and some members who are not familiar with the location on the lunar surface.

I have had a look at many locations in the area of Mons Hansteen and it would appear that there is a lot more to see than meets the eye. Some of these locations I am having another look at just in case there is something of interest that I may have missed.

Unfortunately, I cannot agree with the concensus that the large rock referred to as a 'monolith' is what most members seem to think it is. The question has been forwarded as to it's origin and its placement on the surface. The quick answer to this is that it could well be a built construction that, from a distant viewpoint, appears to be a large rock formation.

The reason why I enhance some of the lunar images stems from my time at university when I was studying for an honours degree. Many of the professors and other staff would say if you want to find out the real truth about something you have to question everything and that is why I pay so much attention to the lunar views. I question what we are presented with. There is a lot more to observe on the surface in the lunar images when adjustments or further enhancement has been applied to the downloaded originals.

The current visual information we are being presented with is very questionable. To be honest, in this day and age, I would have expected to view much better quality images from LROC than what we are being presented with. A possible resolution down to 0.05m/pixel or even 0.01m/pixel would be more appropriate so that a more positive evaluation of the surface objects and other featurs could be made without having to enhance the images. I have produced a closeup view of the large anomalous object seen in the images above and will post it later. What members may find of interest in this particular image are the geometrical shapes of certain objects in the immediate area of the large object. Some of these shapes can also be seen in the animation I posted above.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


The current visual information we are being presented with is very questionable. To be honest, in this day and age, I would have expected to view much better quality images from LROC than what we are being presented with. A possible resolution down to 0.05m/pixel or even 0.01m/pixel would be more appropriate so that a more positive evaluation of the surface objects and other featurs could be made without having to enhance the images. I have produced a closeup view of the large anomalous object seen in the images above and will post it later. What members may find of interest in this particular image are the geometrical shapes of certain objects in the immediate area of the large object. Some of these shapes can also be seen in the animation I posted above.



Funny 0.5 mtr or slightly better on some LRO images is the same as Google Earth and as we are looking at craters, rocks & dust that good enough for now.

Even if they went to 0.01mtr YOU would still dispute what you see.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Funny 0.5 mtr or slightly better on some LRO images is the same as Google Earth and as we are looking at craters, rocks & dust that good enough for now.

Even if they went to 0.01mtr YOU would still dispute what you see.


Talk about the monolithic rocks that are bigger than Tracy's Rock (which could be a good comparison). Talk about the alternate views of the "vent" that were kindly posted by ATS wildespace. Talk about the published scientific references which are silly enough to not take themselves so god damned seriously, as you seem to. Talk about the features on Mons Hansteen. Talk about measurements. Talk about KREEP. Talk about the regolith sheet on the site of the "vent". Talk about the Dunites. Talk about these blocks of rock with sharp angles and razor sharp shadows. Talk about the setting pattern of these rocks and examine the sites in detail. Talk about your theory of how that or those rocks came to be situated in that exact location. Talk about the natural forces that created this rock and positioned it.

As I said before the scientists disagree on the origins of the moon and this thread will welcome disagreement but not persistent trolling of our highly valued ATS members.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
To be honest, in this day and age, I would have expected to view much better quality images from LROC than what we are being presented with. A possible resolution down to 0.05m/pixel or even 0.01m/pixel would be more appropriate so that a more positive evaluation of the surface objects and other featurs could be made without having to enhance the images.


They would have to use the most advanced spy satellites currently in service, which have something like 12 cm/pixel resolution, but I suspect even that will not be enough for you.

LROC resolution is good enough to see the Apollo descent stages, various equipment left there by the astronauts, and even their foot tracks in the lunar soil. LROC would see buildings and other artificial structures, if there were any.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Then why didn't NASA think of using cameras with the resolution of spy satellites in the first place? The reason was probably down to cost. The transmission of the increased data would have been no problem as the moon is 'just down the road' so to speak. The signal takes less than two seconds to reach earth.

In the post above I stated that I cannot agree with the concensus of opinion that the large object laballed a 'monolith' is a large rock formation. A very close view shows that the object has definite form as well as some of the smaller objects on the surrounding terrain. The whole area would appear to be littered with built structural formations.

The animation shown below is a crop from a larger view and yes, I have enhanced the image as this is the only way that a more realistic recognition of the surface features can be achieved. The downloadable original does not allow the viewer to make a positive evaluation of the surface features. I have added some arrows to the animation.

The green arrows show some of the structural forms. The yellow arrows are pointing to what I believe is a chimney or stack and the red arrows are pointing to what could well be a vapour or steam emission from the top of the stack. I have drawn some lines in yellow on the large object to indicate its form.

Take a look and see what you think.





posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Well, what I see is this:

Your image is blown-up beyond recognition and the bicubic interpolation 'does' add new information to shapes which, all of a sudden, look much smoother and less 'rocky' due to the process you applied.

Interpolation adds virtual coordinates based on existing points & data to fill in the gaps where there is none available. The purpose is to make the zoomed image 'look' more coherent, but it does not represent the real shape.


Interpolation is a method of constructing new data points within the range of a discrete set of known data points (wiki).


Also: why did you not use Quickmap as proposed by wildespace in this post? It shows your rock and its 'context' with much more detail:



edit on 10-7-2013 by jeep3r because: text



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 

I thought monoliths were MADE by a being of intelligence ( at least the connotation of the word).

All I've see are photos of rocks.

Gosh, I must be missing the point or some imaginary important piece of information.

edit on 7/10/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Talk.talk,talk well care to explain what you think is special about a group of rocks on the moon, you used the word precise regarding them care to expand on what you mean after all the Earth & Moon have many random areas with ROCKS!



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
Then why didn't NASA think of using cameras with the resolution of spy satellites in the first place? The reason was probably down to cost. The transmission of the increased data would have been no problem as the moon is 'just down the road' so to speak. The signal takes less than two seconds to reach earth.



Again you lack of knowledge re imaging shines like a beacon why don't you compare the average spy satellite orbiting the Earth taking hi-res images compared to the LRO.

A little clue for you check the mirror size!!!



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 


What are you on about? The enhancement has been produced by an image that wildespace posted earlier. See reference below.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I wish members would start to look at the shapes and features showing in the enhaced images rather than focussing on technical issues related to imaging and resampling. It's the more finite object detail that is of interest here and not how I produced the views. Anyway, any member with a degree of patience and knowledge of using Photoshop tools should be able to reproduce what can be observed in the enhanced images.

Here is another animation with arrows pointing to some of the major features. If you only give the image a quick glance you will probably fail to see the multitude of features. The area shown is just a very tiny section of the lunar surface. There are plenty of interesting objects and features to see all over the lunar surface but in most cases they can only be visualized by enhancing the images as the smooth regolith that is showing in many of the images is 'hiding' a great deal of object detail.

How can anyone say the shapes indicated in the animation do not have geometrical form?





posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


They are Rocks at the dead center of the "Arrowhead" which make them interesting to look at and discuss.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by jeep3r
 

What are you on about? The enhancement has been produced by an image that wildespace posted earlier. See reference below.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Rather by the last image in this post, judging by the size ratio and lower level of detail. The point being that your treatment leads to results which are beyond recognition, as mentioned earlier, except for some overexposed points of reference that can still be made out.



I wish members would start to look at the shapes and features showing in the enhaced images rather than focussing on technical issues related to imaging and resampling. It's the more finite object detail that is of interest here and not how I produced the views. Anyway, any member with a degree of patience and knowledge of using Photoshop tools should be able to reproduce what can be observed in the enhanced images.


You create the geometry yourself using filters & effects, it's not in the image. When dodging & burning (excessively) you emphasize highlights and shadows thus altering the ratio of colors. There is also evidence in your picture that you applied the process unevenly & selectively and I will not hesitate to point that out upon request. When scaling up the image using some kind of interpolation this false image information becomes even more prominent and visible.

It's a case of excessive image manipulation and the results are extremely misleading ... just needed to be said again, IMO.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


They are Rocks at the dead center of the "Arrowhead" which make them interesting to look at and discuss.




So there are rocks at the dead center of the "IMPERFECT Arrowhead" discuss



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join