NOT a Rock!!! Anomaly in Moon Photo lo5-126-h2a.

a reply to: dollukka

I know right? Thanx for checkin' out the Thread! Later, Syx.

a reply to: theMediator

Sorry that I missed your reply here! My bad, for sure.
Not sure what it is or who put it there, if it is indeed not natural, or as someone pointed out, a photo processing or transport flaw. Pretty far stretch on that, but who knows, right? I am still pulling for man made, or alien made.
It is probably ours, is my thoughts on this. Not sure about what country though, maybe german? You know, the Nazi Moon Base and all, right? LOL!!!
All kiddin aside, I do see it as something mechanical . Some agree, and some don't see anything at all, so......Thanx for the response TM. See Ya round. Syx.

Look at this in the lower right of the main photo. It looks like a tower built like we do with cranes. Very odd for a photo artifact.



And this looks like part of a rocket sort of. Could be rocks, but it looks out of place. Taken from the same pic


Source

originally posted by: theMediator
I was expecting to come to this thread and see a rock...

It's alien that's for sure, probably martian!
Either a martian base, a martian satellite dish, martian picture anomaly or a martian ROCK.
Oh no I said rock! ;p

Not, I'm just pulling your leg, you could be on to something!

Nice find.

A martian putting rocks on the moon would be very suspect indeed.

a reply to: SyxPak

It's definitely odd looking, sort of resembles a satellite but upside down, hmm. There also looks like something else to the right of the circular structure.

It does not look like a rock, not in the least bit. It looks artificial.

ETA:


It almost looks like the two structures are connected by a wire...but that could just be pareidolia talking.

originally posted by: SyxPak
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

So are You saying it is a Rock, or??? Not trying to be an Ass, but am just questioning what You are getting at. Thanx for posting the original photo from online!! Syx.

So when looking for anomalies on LO images... well... we should recognize that there are different possible sources for the image. The actual LO signals were recorded on mag tapes. en.wikipedia.org...

The image at question in this thread was produced by "The Lunar Orbiter images on this website were all digitally scanned at 400 dpi at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston." according to this source ser.sese.asu.edu...

And "These scans were acquired by B.B. Wilcox as part of her Undergraduate Honors project at Northwestern University. For further information contact [email protected]." Same source.

Back when Lunar Orbiter program was going on Farouk El-Baz played a significant role in collecting and collating the LO images. El-Baz was a Bellcomm was a geologist/contractor working for NASA HQ. He sorted the images what were a mess piled on a desk, according to him. During the planning/scouting phases of Apollo it was not necessary to have mega-pixel resolution of landing sites and they did not use digital imaging processesors they used standard dark room photo techniques. Notice all the scratches on these dark areas...

I can image that El-Baz knew these Lunar Orbiter images quite intimately because he was also involved in selecting the Apollo landing sites as Secretary of the Landing Site Selection Committee.

Just so happens that El-Baz has a wonderful story about how he hired on at Bellcomm. It involves the brother of a future United States president. Interesting story I won't derail your thread with the details.

I don't wanna rain on the parade of those who are looking for anomalies in moon pictures - that is not my goal - but it's the first objective to determine the quality of the source material. This Lunar Orbiter image is an historical artifact that was scanned at 400dpi. The more we zoom in the more pixels we will see and more dirt and fibers too.

This is a nice image that is full of anomalies, of which, 99% can be explained by the source quality. In my view, it could be quite challenging to find actually real anomalies because this picture is also very high contrast leaving many details washed out or blacked out. Just my two bits. I hope you can find something in there that cannot be easily explained!

Looks like flaws/damage to the image rather than actual artefacts.

Using the source file ser.sese.asu.edu...

I zoomed and cropped the top left of the mosaic the source page image. 180 flipped the mosaic. Selected the garbage colors in the black/gray black range and deleted it. Selected the "white gray" garbage colors and deleted it. Filled in deleted areas with dark blue. Red circled areas indicate the troublesome areas in the mosaic which left the hard and soft triangles and prove the mosaic nature of the image. Yellow arrows are there to suggest the general arrangement of the mosaic images.





You can see the areas where the mosaic was put together from different shots/orbits evident by the triangular residual features made more apparent with the dark blue fill color.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

You can see the areas where the mosaic was put together from different shots/orbits evident by the triangular residual features made more apparent with the dark blue fill color.

Apparently you didn't read or understand the documentation. The mosaic is put together from onboard scans made from a single photograph (on 70mm film) which was processed on the spacecraft and transmitted to Earth. Not different shots. Not different orbits.

a reply to: SyxPak

I appreciate your time and effort and encourage that more people take time to do what you have done in looking for for something that has been missed. However i have to agree with the idea thats its more a product of the poor image quality that an actual structure. To me it appears to be some sort of damage and is given its shape by sitting on a dark area and moving into a light area. This almost gives the shape of a tree or something of the kind. When removing all from the image you are left with 3 damage marks: this one, a large hoizontal line and one towards the bottom right.



This is the image flipped and takes away the effect for the human eye to relate to something familiar amongst unfamiliar background.

This is just my opinion and im no expert but thought id add my few cents.

Good job either way

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

You can see the areas where the mosaic was put together from different shots/orbits evident by the triangular residual features made more apparent with the dark blue fill color.

Apparently you didn't read or understand the documentation. The mosaic is put together from onboard scans made from a single photograph (on 70mm film) which was processed on the spacecraft and transmitted to Earth. Not different shots. Not different orbits.

If it weren't different orbits then why is this mosaic image obviously stitched together?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
Because, as I said and is explained in greater detail in the link I provided, the film was scanned on board the spacecraft. Scanned in strips. The scans were transmitted as television signals back to Earth where photographic prints were made. The prints were then reassembled.

a reply to: SyxPak

There are 2 guitar picks in the photo? 2nd is an inch and a half to the left?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
Because, as I said and is explained in greater detail in the link I provided, the film was scanned on board the spacecraft. Scanned in strips. The scans were transmitted as television signals back to Earth where photographic prints were made. The prints were then reassembled.

Yeah sure. Scanned in strips. The prints were then reassembled into the mosaic ser.sese.asu.edu... that was acquired by B.B. Wilcox as part of her Undergraduate Honors project at Northwestern University.

Do you even know who B.B. Wilcox is?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Yeah sure. Scanned in strips. The prints were then reassembled into the mosaic ser.sese.asu.edu

No. Per the description of the system here:
astropedia.astrogeology.usgs.gov... 42.pdf


I don't really care who B.B. Wilcox is.

originally posted by: Phage
I don't really care who B.B. Wilcox is.

B.B. Wilcox is the allegedly real person who created the mosaic here ser.sese.asu.edu...

Does anyone want to refute this webpage? ser.sese.asu.edu...

a reply to: Jennyfrenzy

As mentioned, there are a ton of interesting anomalies in the main Photo.
I agree that the power of Pareidolia really takes hold in some areas though. Actually probably in a Lot of areas.It may very well be a wire that You see.
"It does not look like a rock, not in the least bit. It looks artificial." From You. Thanx and I totally Agree with You on that statement!!

Later, Syx.

a reply to: spirit_horse


Interesting stuff there! I like it! Nice Finds!

Now, to anyone saying these anomalies I, and Others found,
can be processing or other errors, I agree that some may be just that.

But some , in My opinion, are Not That!

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: Phage
I don't really care who B.B. Wilcox is.

B.B. Wilcox is the allegedly real person who created the mosaic here ser.sese.asu.edu...

Does anyone want to refute this webpage? ser.sese.asu.edu...

B.B. Wilcox was NOT involved with the original image acquisition (in fact, I bet she wasn't even born when the original images were taken in 1967). Her involvement is in RE-scanning the original images sometime around the year 2002 to make the TIFF versions that we can all see on our computers.

You are correct in saying BB Wilcox needed to scan the originals in quadrants (thus creating a mosaic), but Phage is correct when he says how the original images were transmitted from the spacecraft to Earth in strips, also creating a mosaic...

...These images were taken prior to digital imaging technology was used for NASA probes, so this image was instead taken with a film camera. The original FILM image could not come back to Earth (the probe did not come back), so it was scanned on board the spacecraft and the scans were transmitted back to Earth by radio waves. This was ONE image taken at ONE time and printed on ONE piece of film. However, The film image was larger than what could be scanned by the spacecraft, so it was scanned in strips, and those strips were transited to Earth, where the strips were re-assembled into a transmitted copy of the original image.

35 years later, B.B. Wilcox digitized that image as a high-resolution scan (the digitized TIFF that our computers can display), but she needed to do so in quadrants so it could fit on her scanner. She then reassembled those scans. But that's NOT the same as reassembling the original image as transmitted by the spacecraft in the 1967. The thin horizontal strips you can visible see on the image is an artifact from the original assemblage of the transmitted mosaic in 1967. I'm not sure if you can see easily see any sign of the mosaic made by B.B. Wilcox when she digitized the 1967 mosaic image in 2002.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter


I really appreciate the Depth You put into Your Reply here. You covered a lot of info!
Thank You SJ!!!
Interesting You mentioned 99% being explained by Source Quality. I am only after that illusive 1% of Un-Explainable!!
I'd even settle for 99.9% Explained.
That .1% works just fine for Me!! Thank You again!!! Syx.