A good looking lunar anomaly - 2017

And just to prove a point, here are the two craters as viewed by Japan's Kaguya probe:





The second one is composed of 4 separate image tiles joined together, so any joins or shade differences are a result of me doing that.

The original image in the OP is, I believe, manipulated from the LRO's 'WAC nearside (big shadows)' layer:

And again, just for fun, here are China's Chang'e-2 views of the same craters:

This is India's view of the one on Clavius' rim. I've only used the jpg browse images as it would be a 2Gb download! This is two tiles combined.



So we so far have 4 different probes imaging something and not a single sign of the structures in the OP.

Make that 5 with one of the original lunar orbiters:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

So, either all the world's space agencies are colluding to hide something, including every amateur astronomer ever, or some hoaxer is getting a nice stream of click based revenue.

I know where my money is.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Agreed , no official link makes it hard to believe if it's been faked.

So I suggest to put up some LRO link to this story.

So I think to photoshop celestial bodies should be punishable, only NASA can do that..

a reply to: 0bserver1

Not sure I'd go that far, otherwise I would also be in trouble!

People have this thing about Photoshop and assume that every image that has been through it has been manipulated to add or remove something. The simple fact is that Photoshop is the industry standard photo editing tool, and editing can be as simple as opening a file and saving it in a different format. Every image I have ever posted on the internet has been through photoshop, including these two.





The top one is a partial view of the other crater in the OP, stretched to fit as it is taken at an angle. India's coverage of that one is incomplete, but enough is there to show that there is no structure present (it would show at least one of the supposed structures in the OP image). The other is from my own 1965 copy of 'Lunar Geology' by Gilbert Fielder and shows Clavius crater photographed from Earth by a telescope. Crater 'C' is one of those shown in the OP image.

I am still waiting any kind of supporting information or documentation that says the OP image is genuine.

With all the space debris and junk floating about it is no wonder some of it falls to the Lunar surface and over time becomes covered in the dust.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Look what I found "just for fun." Since the links you provided had no zoom feature for the pictures, I went to www.lroc.asu.edu... and discovered this photo, which I zoomed using the built in feature, provided on the page.

Pretty sure, this matches the OP's picture of the "anomaly." So how exactly is this "fake" if this is currently on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera's website?
HERE'S THE LINK: wms.lroc.asu.edu...


HMMMM, LOOKS ABOUT THE SAME AS THE OP'S PIC:

a reply to: shawmanfromny

I am not saying that there are no rectilinear structures on the moon. The OP posted a very good example of one in Paracelsus C crater, and I also posted a link that explored those features in detail. I am more than happy that there are perfectly reasonable and logical explanations for those features that do not require the presence of alien civilisations or any other kind of magic fairy dust to account for their presence.

The one that I am calling fake is the first one in the OP post, which is the one he was asking about. That's the one that is fake. Completely made up. Baloney.

e2a: If you want to download the images I posted yourself, here's a tutorial I wrote on how to do that onebigmonkey.com... - though China's page has changed somewhat.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Oh yeah and NAZA does not bomb thing's to hide the truth do they, oh hold on a moment they do don't they.

S & F

It never occurred to me that may have been to cover up some huge anomaly. I thought they were trying to prove whether the moon is hollow as some have postulated. ( NASA being NASA we would never get any confirmation if the moon was indeed hollow )

Thanks

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Thanks for the link. IMO, those rectilinear structures look out of place to be natural. It's quite possible there is a rational explanation for them, then again maybe there isn't. At my age, even though I'm skeptical, I still have an open mind.

Here is an image analysis of the artifacts in question if anyone is interested.

Im age analysis of rectilinear objects

Here is the citation:

Carlotto, Mark & Ridge, Francis & Sirisena, Ananda. (2016). Image Analysis of Unusual Structures on the Far Side of the Moon in the Crater Paracelsus C. Journal of Space Exploration. 4. .

The authors present an analysis of Apollo 15 and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images of two unusual features in the crater Paracelsus C on the far side of the moon. At first glance these structures appear to be walls or towers on the lunar surface. By combining multiple images we show the larger feature, oriented in a northeast/southwest direction, is not simply a wall but two walls on either side of a narrow valley or " passageway ".

Using single image shape from shading and 3D terrain visualization we show in a computer generated perspective view looking northeast that the southwest end appears to be the entrance to the passageway. A reverse angle view looking southwest shows the passageway ending at a rise of terrain at the other end, possibly leading underground. The terrain surrounding the two structures is not flat but appears " excavated " by some unknown mechanism, natural or artificial.

It is shown that these objects are visually different from the lunar background because their underlying structure is different.

Good thread OP.

the first picture is likely cgi
the second however is one of my favorite space anomalies, yes its real and has been photographed both by the apollo and lro lunar missions

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
I agree
simply opening and viewing then saving a photo in photoshop adds a whole bunch of data to the image anyway which can lead people to believe straight away its been edited in some fashion.
not only that but any photo which has been digitally manipulated will leave a trace , using digital imaging forensic analysis you can see where there have been edits in pictures.

anyone can do this using a free imaging forensic tool online.

a reply to: sapien82

A while back I noticed something strange near the center of BarbierD crater: the numbers 1120, about 2 km west of the center of the crater. I've seen no mention of this anywhere on the Internet. The number 1120 is approximately 70 meters in length. You can see this for yourself on the quickmap.lroc.asu site linked above.

But here's a close-up snapshot:

imgur.com...

I have not altered or enhanced the linked image. Maybe it's a mere coincidence of nature--perhaps just the geography making something apparent that's not really there.

Or maybe drawn by giants a million years ago.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
If it helps, I have found the crater concerned - the features are alleged to be on the edge of Clavius crater, which is clearly visible from Earth.

Happy hunting.

Excellent detective work, thanks. I found a large, hi-def LROC of an overhead view of Clavius and the "anomaly" is absent. However, whoever faked this did do appropriate shadowing on the upper left view while the shadowing fails in the crater with the multiple "mounds" as the tips should not have been lit but should have been in shadow. I didn't pay attention as my old brain is not up to snuff.

upload.wikimedia.org...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
(snip)
I know where my money is.

Please tell me where your money is as it must be as secure as your mind and I want to deposit our fortune there 'cause then my wife and I will have a secure financial future!

Thanks for your excellent work.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Look what I found "just for fun." Since the links you provided had no zoom feature for the pictures, I went to www.lroc.asu.edu... and discovered this photo, which I zoomed using the built in feature, provided on the page.

(snip)
HMMMM, LOOKS ABOUT THE SAME AS THE OP'S PIC:

I identified Paracelsus C as the crater with similar objects but I didn't call them "anomalies", I used the image as reference to indicate that the other "anomalies" now in Crater Clavius could be natural formations. That's why I specified "but no match".

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: LABTECH767

Oh yeah and NAZA does not bomb thing's to hide the truth do they, oh hold on a moment they do don't they.

S & F

It never occurred to me that may have been to cover up some huge anomaly. I thought they were trying to prove whether the moon is hollow as some have postulated. ( NASA being NASA we would never get any confirmation if the moon was indeed hollow )

Thanks

The Moon is not hollow that was a claim because of a phrase used.

"The moon rang like a bell” quotation is just a misrepresentation of the fact that the reverberations picked up on seismometers continued longer than expected. The scientists at the press conference described the reverberations as being as surprising as if you struck a bell and it was still ringing an hour later. They never took it to suggest that the moon was hollow.

Remember, this event happened back in November 1969, near the beginning of the Apollo era during the Apollo 12 mission, when scientists were still learning a lot about the moon. The context of the event is that the crew had sent the Lunar Module crashing into the Moon following their return to the command craft, and it struck the moon with a force of one ton of TNT. The shock waves built up to a peak in eight minutes and continued for nearly an hour.

There are other ways to confirm the Moon is not hollow due to gravity orbit etc.

a reply to: wmd_2008

There is a general misunderstanding there when they say hollow , they most likely mean that it has internal cavities/cavernous regions much like earth
due to lava tubes etc

a reply to: TheTruthRocks

Hey sorry I didnt reply earlier as I couldnt open the link from work , thats certainly interesting
it definitely does look like numbers but I dont know how much of that is down to the fact you already stated
it was 1120. I have to admit it does look like numbers but it could be just a region of darker regolith which just so happens to look like numbers because we humans like to see everything from the human perspective.

Would be interesting to look at this region through a decent telescope, saying that my friend has a really nice telescope I wonder if it is powerful enough to get a look at this region, I cant imagine it will be powerful enough to see that region in great detail.

It does have gps tracking software on it so Im sure we could locate the region easily enough, we intend to goto the skypark in the national forest down in Dumfries and Galloway. We are going to go soon one weekend and take the telescope have a look at the moon and see if we can see the dust cloud of the milky way.
I will definitely take pictures of what we see and post them here.

Ta