My mistakes revealed (There but for the grace...)

I spent quite a few days thinking about whether to post this. Many things went through my head. Principally the idea of appearing to be telling people what to think.
I hope that the way I present this is not in any way offensive to anybody nor is it my intention to be a guide.

After having spent an inordinate amount of time on ATS, and finding a topic that was very interesting to me, I decided to investigate du du du duhhhhh.
The topic is a very contentious one, NASA photos.
I particularly chose the LRO pictures because I just love them.
I therefore started at the source, and to cut a long story short, I never got any further.
What happened was simple, I started to go over the pictures and lo and behold, I spotted an anomaly straight away.



You see the little double wheeled thingy?
Well, I just thought that it was an artifact from the scan so yeah.
Then I saw this:



Different background equals different time, right?
I was now excited.

So I continued:



Of course at the time, I really thought that these images were of an anomalous object, I even downloaded the heavy tif files to check and zoom.

I am now convinced that they are in fact simple objects on whatever plates they used to scan the photos. Why am I convinced? Well, if you look closely at the top left corner, the object always appears in the same place on the grid, if not on the actual photo.

So why am I writing this? The reason is that if you see an object repeated, you should always check more than once.

What is the point here? I suppose it is simply me saying I just started to understand how to
analyse pictures.
All images available from here: The numbers can be changed from 1000 and up.
LROC images

There are many images of this "artefact starting from about 1160 to about 1190 or so

a reply to: Jonjonj

Well, you did not post a thread, entitled :

Holy Balls! Would You Look At The Size Of THIS?!

...and proceed to wax poetic about the journey it might have undertaken to arrive in the vicinity... Did you?

a reply to: TrueBrit

I did everything but profess the size.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Well that's alright then!

Look... I think when it comes to stuff like this, there are two crucial factors at play. First, is that it is understandable to get something to someone's attention as soon as possible after spotting it. This allows one to gain the aid of others who share like interests, and may involve interacting with persons who have just a little more experience with the technological aspects of image analysis. It also ensures that information is being delivered to a wider audience, as fast as possible, meaning more people saving images to their hard drives, and/or printing them. In the event of certain images, or documents being removed from the web, the spread of the data protects it from being totally cleaned away by any over zealous government types, without serious breaches of civil liberties, beyond that which is currently understood to be the norm.

Second, assuming this had been something of note, it would have been in everyone's best interest to be aware of it early.

Next time, just put a disclaimer in your post, saying that speculative reasoning may be the basis of, and content of the thread, for which you apologise in advance with the reasoning stated above as a clarification of your intent in posting in the first place.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I put this in deconstructing disinformation for a reason.

S & F. years ago i was obsessed with this kind of stuff. and ufos. my interest curve has fallen of a cliff recently. i wish i was still as interested as back then.

a reply to: RoScoLaz4

I am still fascinated by the subject, hence why I did not post this in the UFO forum. My hope was to help anybody who may have seen artifacts and things to at least make sure they checked twice or three times before being exposed to ridicule, which is quite a painful endeavour.

a reply to: Jonjonj

i am still interested too. i applaud you