Gigantic structures on the front side of the moon + other 'anomalies'

eriktheawful, anomalies are not visible in any photograph, you should be using the same nasa photographs mr jose did. they are publicly available. and then ask yourself, why are they there in the first place. it's not like they are being photoshoped by mr. escamilla, he just has a sharp eye to detect them. let take a look at this one, probably most famous of his finds. you can hardly dismss it as pareidolia or illusion, so it remains unindetified and we can only guess what it is.
darknoir, yes i am and i am also your father. let's also take a look at this another find by mr. escamilla, it is a old nasa photo of a Guyot crater. the object looks like a giant soda bottle. it may be just a ruck, but if you look closer, it seems to be hovering. we can see, object is more than 2km long, so what is it, a symmetrical rock, a gigant space monster, or a crashed galactic cruiser? we can only guess.

reply to post by tachyonator7


Try not posting a ridiculously "enhanced" version of the photo and you'll see that it's... a crater. On the moon. Just fancy that.



A small impact crater on the rim of the big crater, with darker material ejected out on the downslope. But once again you are deliberately using poor-quality or mucked-about-with images rather than ones that show the true picture. The one that you posted above looks like it's had a giant walrus or something superimposed on it!

Edit: if you want the original high-res pic you can find it right here. Without the cartoon annotation, and with an explanation of what it shows, by actual experts. (Turns out it's a lava flow rather than simple ejecta.)

Still not happy? How about a REALLY close-up view from the LROC. This link should take you to the spot (I'm posting from my phone so no guarantees) and you can see clearly that it's a crater with a dark lava flow.

Here's a screenshot:



This is a top-down view, but you can clearly see it is the same crater as shown in the oblique view. Incidentally, this image was mislabelled when originally catalogued. It actually shows the west wall of Lobachevskiy crater, not Guyot, which is a short distance away. The people cataloguing all those thousands of images are human, too! (It is correctly labelled as Lobachevskiy at this link though.)

It's quite plain to see that what you describe as a giant "hovering" object is nothing more than two roughly parallel tongues of lava, which in a low-res photo could possibly give the impression of an object and its shadow.

Now, isn't proper research so much more fun than parroting nonsensical claims from hoax videos?

Now, onto the first image.

That is taken from Apollo 17 image AS17-150-23085.

Here is a crop of that image showing the area of interest. It's not far above the horizon and about a quarter of the way in from the right hand side of the picture.



It's the same spot as the image you posted, but your one was flipped 180 degrees. See?



Here's a wider view of that area. I've circled the "anomaly" in blue.



Now I have flipped this view back through 180 degrees so north is roughly at the top, so it matches your original screengrab (you'll see why in a moment). Note the distinctive shape of the double crater, with a smaller impact crater (labelled "A") right on the junction between the two, and another distinctive crater ("B") on the floor of the larger one. I've also highlighted the "anomaly" there on the crater wall. You can also see the central peak of the crater, although I didn't label that one.



Now, let's compare that to the LROC imagery. You can see that - yes! - it's Lobachevskiy again, No doubt about it, despite the very oblique viewing angle:



And furthermore, the "anomaly" is exactly the same crater shown in the other image I mentioned in my last post!

So both of these so-called anomalies are actually different views of the same thing. Check for yourself by zooming in where I have indicated using the LROC mapping at this link.

Tachyonator, you say:

so it remains unindentified and we can only guess what it is.

Well clearly that isn't the case. If you have an enquiring mind you can find out exactly what many of these "anomalies" are, and see photos of them in incredible detail. Don't you find that amazing? I do, and it boggles my mind that anyone would prefer to look at grainy blobs like you posted when they could be seeing every little boulder in that lava flow like this:



That's a resolution of 1 metre per pixel!

To give you an idea of the scale, this is roughly what that view equates to on the blurry pic you posted:




We have the technology!

Rob48

This is a top-down view, but you can clearly see it is the same crater as shown in the oblique view. Incidentally, this image was mislabelled when originally catalogued. It actually shows the west wall of Lobachevskiy crater, not Guyot, which is a short distance away. The people cataloguing all those thousands of images are human, too! (It is correctly labelled as Lobachevskiy at this link though.)

That link also reports that the CMP actually described those lobes of material extending down from the crater, so it was no secret that it was there. It's in the transcript here www.hq.nasa.gov... (search for Lobachevsky and you'll find the quote). It becomes clear that the fault for misidentifying the crater comes from the CMP, but errors in identifying craters and locations are not unusual - I found many examples when I was plotting all the Apollo images on Google Moon (see the link in my sig to download them).

Mr Escamilla also seems unable to work out that the high res photo he looks is actually colour, and if he'd searched harder for Apollo images of Guyot, he'd have found several taken by Apollo 13. They also weren't secret as he claims - they were available to anyone who wanted to buy them.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

I wonder what tachyonator7 will have to say?

He wrote:

anomalies are not visible in any photograph, you should be using the same nasa photographs mr jose did. they are publicly available.

Well, that's exactly what I did in my previous two posts. It took me less than two hours to track them down, check the location, and then find extremely high-resolution photography of the area in question, and then post screenshots on here, all using a clunky little laptop and MS Paint to crop and annotate the photos. And that was coming to these "anomalies" cold with no previous interest in them. If tachyonator7 is so fascinated by these things then you have to ask, why did he not bother to spend those couple of hours himself?

Instead, he writes things like this:

you can hardly dismss it as pareidolia or illusion, so it remains unindetified and we can only guess what it is.

No - we can't "only guess". This isn't the 1970s. We don't have to visit a library in Houston to pore over grainy photographs taken from Apollo missions. We have metre-resolution imagery of much of the moon's surface, available at the click of a mouse. If we're curious about something then we can go and have a look at it.

This is what frustrates me so much about these wacky theories. People waste hours watching YouTube videos and posting over-enhanced images that have been JPEGged to within an inch of their lives, when with a bit of basic research they could find out the truth for themselves! They seem to prefer to be spoon-fed rubbish by charlatans (and Jose Escamilla certainly fits that category!) rather than actually doing some independent thinking and research.

Here are your two 'moon bases' in HD





Sorry friend, no bases here, unless they developed cloaking techniques I doubt they ever existed.

One thing you forget, is that there are thousands of amateur astrologists out there. All of them have powerful telescopes and, the moon being our closest planetary body, it get's observed very regularly. If there were 40 mile long moon bases, an amateur would have got hold of the images a LONG time a go.

Mettā ~

reply to post by tachyonator7


Why should I use the same photos, photos that are blurry, lack detailed or as not up to date?

Doing so is not proper research into the truth.

That is like giving someone a recording of someone talking, and swearing that it is Mr. So and So talking, and then not allowing the person you make this claim to, to go out and find other recordings of Mr. So and So to compare, or even go visit Mr. So and So and hearing them speak!

Like this google picture of where I live. Which one should I be using to try and find someting?

This?



Or this?



Pretty obvious which one I should be using.

eriktheawful
reply to post by tachyonator7

 

Like this google picture of where I live. Which one should I be using to try and find someting?

This?

Dude - there's totally alien bases in your yard. Check it out! They're hidden by camouflage netting, because aliens are clever like that.

let's review your logic when conductinge "proper research".enough said.

reply to post by Rob48

tachyonator7
let's review your logic when conductinge "proper research".

enough said.

reply to post by Rob48

 

Let's review your logic when conducting "proper research" into the claims of Mr. Jose:

anomalies are not visible in any photograph, you should be using the same nasa photographs mr jose did.

Enough said.

tachyonator7
let's review your logic when conductinge "proper research".

enough said.

reply to post by Rob48

 

I can't even parse what you are trying to say here.

The images I posted are from the original scans. Actually it is YOUR Apollo 17 one (the top right hand image) that was flipped. The original Apollo 17 picture had south roughly at the top. I then flipped your one to demonstrate that the Escamilla pics are taken from the EXACT SAME SOURCE but have been oversharpened, and in the case of the "giant walrus" photo on the left, clearly having part of the image artificially "highlighted" to make it look like something it's not.

What do you mean by "corrected angle and exposure" and "overexposed and flipped"? I haven't altered it in any way here apart from cropping it in MS Paint:




Could you please explain what you mean?

Are you denying that the terrain feature I posted in glorious HD detail (1 metre per pixel) here:



Is the same feature responsible for both of Jose's "anomalies"?

Here's a wider view of the whole crater again. It's less dark than the one I posted last night because I realised I had the "sunlit area" shading option ticked then which made it appear in shadow. The close-up above shows the area at centre right, between the two "tongues" of lava.



If you are denying that this is the same feature, could you please explain, carefully, where I went wrong with my step-by-step analysis last night?

If not, do you agree that these "anomalies" are no such thing, and are simply misinterpretations of poor-quality photographs?

I had thought that you might have the decency to acknowledge the effort I went to to illustrate the truth of the matter. Surely anyone passionate about discovering the truth would appreciate a bit of help with their research?

tachyonator7
let's review your logic when conductinge "proper research".

enough said.

reply to post by Rob48

 

Proper research should never use a photo that has been enhanced and manipulated by someone. Original photos, if there is something there, should be able to stand on their own.

The reason for this: Because with today's technology, any photo or video can be manipulated to show anything that anyone desires it to show.

Anyone can take a image and "enhance" it to show what they want, or believe is there. You can make depressions look like something that is tall. you can make shadows look like objects. You can change the color and contrast of a certain area so that the pixels make it look like something is there when it is not.

A single photo is not proof of anything. A single photo that has been "enhanced" by someone is only proof that someone knows how to use imaging software to make what they want.

MULTIPLE IMAGES showing the exact same thing over and over that have not been "enhanced" by someone lends much more credibility of whether or not something is or is not there, or what it is.

A single blurry photo that has been enhanced by someone is not solid evidence that something is there. It IS solid evidence that the person producing it is trying very hard to convince people of something and make them see what they want them to see.

And still no answer from him. He's nitpicking about whether or not the blurry, low-res, nearly half-a-century-old pics have been enhanced or flipped, when we have new HD imagery that shows individual rocks the size of a family car!

It's like trying trying to identify what colour hair some guy in Row Z has from this photo:



and totally ignoring the fact that we have a crystal clear portrait photo of him!


However I would like to offer one apology. I said that the A16 image had been badly shopped to show the outline of a giant walrus balancing on top of the crater rim. On closer examination it is clearly a spotted seal:

Rob48

However I would like to offer one apology. I said that the A16 image had been badly shopped to show the outline of a giant walrus balancing on top of the crater rim. On closer examination it is clearly a spotted seal:

edit on 20-3-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)

A 2km long KILLER spotted seal!!!!!

it simply mean's you will hardly spot the anomaly in a photo taken from the 10 times higher altitude, with a low resolution camera. especially, if the angle and lightning are significantly different. and as we have also concluded before, most of the newer moon images get "cleaned" from anything but craters and desert terrain. i command you as your legal father to go to your room as you are grounded. so, we can conclude with confidence that the older nasa photografs are more reliable than any of the newer ones, and the older photos are the ones who show the structures of course. makes you wonder what is there today, if we could only get some close ups even in the black and white. but there is hope we'll get some real color of the moon, let's take a look of the latest jade rabbit moon photo.

draknoir2
Let's review your logic when conducting "proper research" into the claims of Mr. Jose:

anomalies are not visible in any photograph, you should be using the same nasa photographs mr jose did.

Enough said.

reply to post by tachyonator7


i think everyone understood that high res is better than lo-res.

The point is: can we trust the sources of the high res pictures totally.

Thats the only question.
I would say yes, but maybe others don´t.

kauskau
reply to post by tachyonator7

 

i think everyone understood that high res is better than lo-res.

The point is: can we trust the sources of the high res pictures totally.

Thats the only question.
I would say yes, but maybe others don´t.

edit on 20-3-2014 by kauskau because: (no reason given)

There is so many terabytes of data, does anyone seriously think anyone has the time to go through it, scouring the web for any mentions of "anomalies", then finding the relevant spot in the imagery, coming up with suitably convincing high-res terrain that matches up with the old low-res stuff (note, in this case, the twin tongues of dark lava that are easily discernable on imagery dating back to Apollo 16!)


If anyone believes that that is more likely than some PROVEN nutcase like Jose "flying rods, oh whoops I mean bugs" Escamilla misinterpreting a blurry image and trying to make a few bucks out of it, then they ought to have a quiet chat with their nearest mental health pracitioner.

If anyone ever wanted a perfect example of circular logic, look no further:

so, we can conclude with confidence that the older nasa photografs are more reliable than any of the newer ones, and the older photos are the ones who show the structures of course.

"The new photos don't show what I want them to show, so therefore they are unreliable and we have to look at the older photos." Genius!


And still tachyonator7 hasn't acknowledged that he has been proven to be utterly wrong about these "anomalies". Instead, in true CTer fashion, he drops that ball and starts picking up another one. "Never mind this anomaly that turned out to be a crater... have a look at THIS..." And so it goes on.

Please, pretty please... you can do it. Say "I was wrong about the giant moon walrus, and Jose Escamilla is a big shyster." Just for me?

thank you for solving the mystery. so, it is a 2km long seal and that dug a whole in front of it to take a dump? since you are such a great analyst here are another two i'd like you to solve it for me too. luna 9 and lunar orbiter. i think they might be a giant eels but i'm not sure. thank you.

Rob48
However I would like to offer one apology. I said that the A16 image had been badly shopped to show the outline of a giant walrus balancing on top of the crater rim. On closer examination it is clearly a spotted seal:

edit on 20-3-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)

tachyonator7
here are another two i'd like you to solve it for me too. luna 9 and lunar orbiter. i think they might be a giant eels but i'm not sure. thank you.

Help me out a bit. What am I looking for? The first image seems to show a lot of long shadows cast by rocks and boulders, with a very low sun angle. Is there any specific part you think looks anomalous?

The second image just looks like a big black blob to me.

The first image is from the Lunar Orbiter, image LO5-125-H2A. The section you posted is in the top right corner of the image, which you can zoom into on that link.

tachyonator7
it simply mean's you will hardly spot the anomaly in a photo taken from the 10 times higher altitude, with a low resolution camera. especially, if the angle and lightning are significantly different. and as we have also concluded before, most of the newer moon images get "cleaned" from anything but craters and desert terrain. i commend you as your legal father to go to your room as you are grounded. so, we can conclude with confidence that the older nasa photografs are more reliable than any of the newer ones, and the older photos are the ones who show the structures of course. makes you wonder what is there today, if we could only get some close ups even in the black and white. but there is hope we'll get some real color of the moon, let's take a look of the latest jade rabbit moon photo.

First of all (and very importantly) most of the images from the Jade Rabbit, including the image you posted, are pictures taken of a video monitor. You can't really trust the colors you see because of this. As far as I know, China has yet to release all of the full resolution digital images form the Jade Rabbit.

So we are left with poor quality "pictures of a picture", like the one you linked. You will never get a true color representation of what is there by looking at a picture of a picture.

Second, it is obvious the moon has colors, but those colors may vary from location to location - just like the colors of dirt on Earth can vary from location to location. Even the colors of the sand in different deserts or different beaches can vary.

Third, there are color pictures taken by the Apollo moon-walkers that show different colors of the moon regolith. However, the types of landing sites for the Apollo the Moon landings did not vary that much, so much of the regolith looks similar. However, there were some variations, such as this orange soil seen by Apollo 17: