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.

 

Strange Structures in a Strange "Strip" nearby the Apollo14 landing site...

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


i applaud your post and thinking Arken

please dont get me wrong here -
how trustable is it, to use "google" to " investigate anything"..?

isnt that using the devil to investigate the devil ?

regards,




posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Thanks for your effort Erik, But these are not artifact of the print.

There are shadows beneath each anomaly and also the straight lines (pipes?) cast shadows.
You can clearly see crater in the "strip" as they are and also the aim "White cross" of the Hasselblad.


edit on 6-8-2013 by Arken because: (no reason given)


Knew you would say this.....and is why I saved the best for last.

Here is your "strip" of artifacts again from the 80mm camera of the Lunar Orbiter:



And here is the area again, taken at the exact same time with the 610mm camera:



Source

Two images taken at the exact same time by the Lunar Orbiter of the exact same area. The higher resolution one (taken by the 610mm camera) does not show what you insist is artifacts on the moon.

Because they are not really there and are a product of the development of the 80mm camera's film. Not actual things on the surface of the moon.

Besides which, considering the size of the area, and length, and being on the visible side of the moon, any telescope worth it's salt would show these "artifacts".



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Heres the deal.

You guys stop behaving like schoolchildren with the petty insults and bickering, and I won't have to post ban you.

No further warnings.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


ericktheawful, many thanks for post the original 'Lunar Orbiter frames' which brought back old memories of personally working with those frames during the preparation for the Apollo 14 Lunar Landing Mission.

There were stereo overlapping pairs that we worked with in 3-D for mapping and photogrammetry purposes using the 'Kelsh Plotters', which were the state of the art for 3-D stereoscopic mapping and photogrammetry during those years of working on the Lunar Landing Missions.

Thanks erictheawful for the time trip, I'm retired from the Agency now.

Arken, when we worked this area for the Apollo 14 landing mission, I did not see anything out of the ordinary in this area, or surrounding areas of this landing site. That said, if we don't investigate we never discover; and I am still impressed by your Mars find of the 'vertebrae' appearing rocks (or are they fossils?). I think that area justified further investigation - nice work on that image find.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by onebigmonkey

Originally posted by arianna
Arken, From looking at your submitted images the formations do look somewhat artificial. To determine exactly what is there a certain amount of image enhancement will be required to sharpen and bring out the detail then we may be in a better position to make a more detailed visual analysis of what is really on the terrain.

For anyone who says they are rocks just rocks. Of course there are rocks on the moon but these particular 'rocks' are something completely different.



I for one am not claiming they are rocks, I am claiming they are products of google's stitching process and not there at all. As these alleged structures are to be found on lunar orbiter images, they should be pretty easy to find on the high res originals at the apollo image atlas (see the link kindly fixed by a mod in the post I made above).

If they are genuinely there they will be on the originals.


Thanks for that but I am not a mod



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


The "original" Lunar Orbiter images are digitalized before the print, a very good opportunity for the "eraser tool".

What I poin at is that the "STRIP" is slipped out from that process of cover up, and they are more detailed than the other surrounding Lunar Orbiter"original" images.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


The "original" Lunar Orbiter images are digitalized before the print, a very good opportunity for the "eraser tool".

What I poin at is that the "STRIP" is slipped out from that process of cover up, and they are more detailed than the other surrounding Lunar Orbiter"original" images.


Ah....but books of these images were published decades ago of these images, well before digitized images, and they have your strip in the 80mm image, but not the 610mm image (again, taken by the orbiter at the very same time).

You have also avoided the question I asked: why is it not visible to telescopic observation by those of us here on the ground? It certainly is big enough to be resolved in at least a 5 inch telescope or bigger. But it's not there.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 





why is it not visible to telescopic observation by those of us here on the ground?

You can see with your telescope something like that?
Are you serious?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by eriktheawful
 





why is it not visible to telescopic observation by those of us here on the ground?

You can see with your telescope something like that?
Are you serious?


Your "strip" is almost 30 km long and 1 km wide.

A 10 inch (or 25 centimeter) telescope that I have, has a resolving power of about 0.46 arc seconds.

The moon (when full) covers about 1825 arc seconds. It's diameter is 3474 km wide. That means 1.9 arc seconds is 1 km.

In other words: my 10 inch scope can resolve things down to just over 800 meters wide (on a clear night with good seeing).

My 8 inch scope has a resolving power of about 0.6 arc seconds. It can see things down to 1.1 km in size.

And my 5 inch scope......well you get the picture.

Even with my smallest telescope, I would still see something that is almost 30 km long, even if the width is a thin line, where as my biggest scope (and there are people who have much, much bigger and better telescopes than me) I would be able to make out the width of that line.

So yes Arken, telescope users would see that line if it were there. We might not be able to get the same detail, but it would stand out just like it does in the pictures.

but....it's not there.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by eriktheawful
 





why is it not visible to telescopic observation by those of us here on the ground?

You can see with your telescope something like that?
Are you serious?


Your "strip" is almost 30 km long and 1 km wide.

A 10 inch (or 25 centimeter) telescope that I have, has a resolving power of about 0.46 arc seconds.

The moon (when full) covers about 1825 arc seconds. It's diameter is 3474 km wide. That means 1.9 arc seconds is 1 km.

In other words: my 10 inch scope can resolve things down to just over 800 meters wide (on a clear night with good seeing).

My 8 inch scope has a resolving power of about 0.6 arc seconds. It can see things down to 1.1 km in size.

And my 5 inch scope......well you get the picture.

Even with my smallest telescope, I would still see something that is almost 30 km long, even if the width is a thin line, where as my biggest scope (and there are people who have much, much bigger and better telescopes than me) I would be able to make out the width of that line.

So yes Arken, telescope users would see that line if it were there. We might not be able to get the same detail, but it would stand out just like it does in the pictures.

but....it's not there.


Really you can spot something like that?

WHY NASA/JAXA and other Country SEND MULTI MILLIONAIRE PROBES on the MOON?

Why don't you and all the astronomers like you give to them your adress and make money with them?



Irony apart: I REALLY DON'T THINK YOU CAN SPOT something like that, Erik.
thanks for your opinion, however



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken


Really you can spot something like that?

WHY NASA/JAXA and other Country SEND MULTI MILLIONAIRE PROBES on the MOON?

Why don't you and all the astronomers like you give to them your adress and make money with them?


Irony apart: I REALLY DON'T THINK YOU CAN SPOT something like that, Erik.
thanks for your opinion, however


Because even the Hubble can only resolve objects about 300ft across were as the LRO it's 05.mtr/pixel



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


It's not my "opinion" Arken.

It's the law of optics.

Try this: actually buy a telescope and learn to use it. The moon is the easiest object in the sky for any person who is learning to use a telescope to focus on.

"Zoom" in with your telescope by using your higher powered eye pieces (like a 10mm with a barlow), on certain features on the moon. Note how they look in the eye piece.

Then use Google Moon to find that same feature, and using the ruler, measure it.

Again, It's not an "opinion", it's a fact. And until you actually start using a telescope and using optics, you're making yourself look silly at this point.

You don't have to take my word for it. You can Google the information, research telescope optics, and asked experienced members who use telescopes on here (like NGChunter) or anywhere else on the internet.

Your sarcastic reply was uncalled for, and shows you lack the knowledge and experience in this area.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   


Image taken with a Celestron NexStar 8SE (an 8 inch telescope) by Dean Covey. The very large crater is Copernicus at 88 km in diameter, however the smaller double crater below it is known as Fauth and is only 5km in diameter.



Image taken with a 18 inch Dobsonian telescope by Mikael Svalgaard. The area imaged is Schröter's Valley and the smallest craters are about 1km in diameter.

So again, not my opinion. Fact.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lone12
reply to post by Arken
 


i applaud your post and thinking Arken

please dont get me wrong here -
how trustable is it, to use "google" to " investigate anything"..?

isnt that using the devil to investigate the devil ?

regards,


Thanks Lone.

But, how trustable is it, to use "LROC QuickMap" to " investigate anything" if it is a total digitalized tool...

It is a very sophisticated forgery tool.

I prefer investigate on the old Lunar Orbiter images, loaded on Google Moon and on the Images from Apollo Missions.

Dont get me wrong: also that images, the majority, are heavily "doctorized" as all the images coming from Space and Mars and other Moons in solar system, but sometime, something slip-out...



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Beautiful images Erik, but TOO FAR.
Simply TOO FAR...



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Beautiful images Erik, but TOO FAR.
Simply TOO FAR...


sigh....no Arken, not too far.

find the areas on Google Moon yourself, and measure them with the ruler.

Prove I'm wrong. Measure Fauth crater and prove it.

I'm starting to being reminded of someone who can never admit they are or might be wrong about something, but will constantly deflect.

Prove I'm wrong Arken.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
the majority, are heavily "doctorized" as all the images coming from Space and Mars and other Moons in solar system,


Your source for that claim is.....?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by eriktheawful
 





why is it not visible to telescopic observation by those of us here on the ground?

You can see with your telescope something like that?
Are you serious?


Your "strip" is almost 30 km long and 1 km wide.

A 10 inch (or 25 centimeter) telescope that I have, has a resolving power of about 0.46 arc seconds.

The moon (when full) covers about 1825 arc seconds. It's diameter is 3474 km wide. That means 1.9 arc seconds is 1 km.

In other words: my 10 inch scope can resolve things down to just over 800 meters wide (on a clear night with good seeing).

My 8 inch scope has a resolving power of about 0.6 arc seconds. It can see things down to 1.1 km in size.

And my 5 inch scope......well you get the picture.

Even with my smallest telescope, I would still see something that is almost 30 km long, even if the width is a thin line, where as my biggest scope (and there are people who have much, much bigger and better telescopes than me) I would be able to make out the width of that line.

So yes Arken, telescope users would see that line if it were there. We might not be able to get the same detail, but it would stand out just like it does in the pictures.

but....it's not there.


Really you can spot something like that?

WHY NASA/JAXA and other Country SEND MULTI MILLIONAIRE PROBES on the MOON?

Why don't you and all the astronomers like you give to them your adress and make money with them?



Irony apart: I REALLY DON'T THINK YOU CAN SPOT something like that, Erik.
thanks for your opinion, however



That is the most dismissive post I have seen on this entire NETWORK of sites in a long, loooong time. It almost sounds as if you don't understand a word he said.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Personally I believe that what we are seeing is simply a combination of low quality images, natural landscape formations, shadows, and rocks and other debris on the surface of the moon. In fact, the low quality of the images have a lot to do with it. We are seeing artifacts, but a different kind of artifact. Artifacts that are not actually physically on the moon to the degree that they appear in the photographs.

Plus, think about this logically. We know there have been airbrushed photos released by NASA. This is a proven fact, that they have doctored photos in the past. And this was before the advent of Photoshop. Technology has improved drastically since then, to the point that they could actually blend the area to the point where doctoring would not be obvious just by viewing the image normally. So why, if there were structures of this nature on the moon, would they still be there in the released version of the photos?

They wouldn't be. NASA would know of these locations, or all they would have to do is scrutinize the images if they didn't know exactly where these structures were. And if they were built by a government, they would know where they were. So if they were alien, or manmade, they would be covered up using software of some kind. And there have been images, well at least one, in the past which showed an actual copy and paste job over a specific area on the moon or mars...I don't remember which. Some astute observer actually realized that certain features were repeated in another area of the landscape. So doctoring does go on.

But why would they doctor photos to begin with if there was nothing there? THAT is the question, and what makes me think there might be something there. But surely they would cover it up, and would not make the mistake of releasing images of this nature. UNLESS the images were released long ago, before they realized people would be able to analyze images much more closely. So although it is improbable that what we are seeing is anything at all, it is possible. I still don't think there is anything unnatural there, but there very well could be. So maybe you are right, I just don't know.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by eriktheawful
 





why is it not visible to telescopic observation by those of us here on the ground?

You can see with your telescope something like that?
Are you serious?


Your "strip" is almost 30 km long and 1 km wide.

A 10 inch (or 25 centimeter) telescope that I have, has a resolving power of about 0.46 arc seconds.

The moon (when full) covers about 1825 arc seconds. It's diameter is 3474 km wide. That means 1.9 arc seconds is 1 km.

In other words: my 10 inch scope can resolve things down to just over 800 meters wide (on a clear night with good seeing).

My 8 inch scope has a resolving power of about 0.6 arc seconds. It can see things down to 1.1 km in size.

And my 5 inch scope......well you get the picture.

Even with my smallest telescope, I would still see something that is almost 30 km long, even if the width is a thin line, where as my biggest scope (and there are people who have much, much bigger and better telescopes than me) I would be able to make out the width of that line.

So yes Arken, telescope users would see that line if it were there. We might not be able to get the same detail, but it would stand out just like it does in the pictures.

but....it's not there.


Really you can spot something like that?

WHY NASA/JAXA and other Country SEND MULTI MILLIONAIRE PROBES on the MOON?

Why don't you and all the astronomers like you give to them your adress and make money with them?



Irony apart: I REALLY DON'T THINK YOU CAN SPOT something like that, Erik.
thanks for your opinion, however



That is the most dismissive post I have seen on this entire NETWORK of sites in a long, loooong time. It almost sounds as if you don't understand a word he said.


It is not that he doesn't understand what was said, if he agreed with what was said it would totally destroy his claims in this whole thread!




top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join