Second Strange formation on the moon

a reply to: LABTECH767

Older images still have to be SCANNED to a DIGITAL format you really don't have a clue!!!

full of repititions

a reply to: Arken

So the more recent hidef images don't show any "martian canals", thus they must have been removed from the images by the evil PTB.

That's like the most unimaginative denial attempt ever, bwahaha.

It does appear that the rock patterns on the images are repeating. There are a couple white lines running across the top of the photo, probably from when the images were scanned.


Added the green arrow to indicate where it appears that the image was cropped.

a reply to: jamie6737

Did you just draw boobs on the moon?

Am I missing something here?

a reply to: Jennyfrenzy
If you look at the source image it's clear they were scanned and stuck together to form a map as some parts are full of lines and parts are of different quality

I don't see a clear line where the formations are doubled though? It is like using the clone tool in photoshop as it's merged very well.

Maybe it has something to do with what took the images?

a reply to: jamie6737

I'm no expert but it seems to me that it's a bad interlacing of two images.

Looks like photo smearing to me from the scan.

Here's the old picture of the area:



Your "strange formation" is located at Lat. -16.5 Long. 118.3

Looking at a more detailed and newer image from the LROC we see this of the same area:



Zooming in to the area you indicated, we see this:

Instead of using a hand-assembled photomosaic map, why don't you look at the original images from the Lunar Orbiter missions that were used to assemble the map?

At the bottom of the right of the map, it tells you that the area you're looking at came from frame 121 of Lunar Orbiter III. Here's that frame: www.lpi.usra.edu...

Here's what that area looks like compared to the map:



So obviously the "duplicates" come from the process that was used to assemble the map.

a reply to: Sparkymedic

geeeez go easy on jamie....it looks like nasa didn't do a good job of matching up image strips and these two objects are really just one that was not matched up

a reply to: wmd_2008

So nasa's scanning technology is so poor it make's it fail, Look I worked an old mass spectrometer and have done my share of darkroom photo processing too, you are clever with your wording but I am afraid it is you who does not have a clue on this point, you know those algorythm's used to need a maiframe to run them and where used to analyse spy satellite data of the soviet union to detect what they were up to as well as proxy war zone's, this first generation of the program was above 95 percent accurate at detecting artificial structure's made to look natural that they human eye could not detect, you know what else today's pc's can probably run it (though slowly) and it has moved on several generations since then so is undoubtedly far more accurate.

Here is another interesting point, they discovered it was so good it was finding archeaological site's as well here on earth, this leaked out but was never confirmed for obvious reason's, what it detected on the moon and apparently on mars when they ran the algorythm was not a glytch either, try lot's of ruin's and not a few but in extreme state's of deterioration or extremely well concealed.