John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

In conclusion on the :Wandering Boulders" I will make one more set of comments;



Newton's First Law of Motion.

"Every object persists in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it."

The "Wandering Boulders" appear to move in spurts judging by the track pattern. There are also smaller rocks near the large moving one that do not move.

This begs the question:
Why are only those rocks moving? What forces could act to make a huge 75 foot plus boulder move and yet leave smaller rocks beside it untouched.

Must be "selective gravity"

Lunar Gravity:

Official Version:

On the moon gravity is comparatively weak. Lunar Surface gravity at the equator is 5.32 ft/sec2 (1.622 m/sec2), compared to 32.174 ft/sec2 (9.806 m/sec2) of Earth. That's 16.5% or nearly exactly 1/6 Earth's gravity. - Source

Gravity Anomaly:

The Lunar gravity field is uneven due to
mascons (mass concentrations) near the surface. These are large, positive gravity anomalies which were detected when NASA scientists discovered that doppler radar signals from the Lunar Orbiter satellite varied as the satellite moved over different parts of the moon. The largest gravity field disturbances are in northern hemisphere at Mare Serenitatis and Mare Imbrium (mascons are usually associated with mare terrain). Mascons are yet to be satisfactorily explained. - Source


Wanna find out what the gravity is really like up there? Get a Job!

NASA Seeks Undergrads to Experiment in Lunar and Zero Gravity

Un-official Version:
Coming Soon to a new chapter...

Now then on to something new.... The Compound ( a little later than Noon but hey...)

First though to answer Loofo's Question properly....

"What do I see in the Luna 17 image..."

The Image in Question



Image Credit: Collection of Don P. Mitchell
www.mentallandscape.com...

Luna-17 landed on the Moon on November 15, 1970. The robotic rover, Lunokhod-1 rolled off the landing platform to explore the surface of the Moon for about a month. Two cycloramic cameras on either side of the rover were oriented for 180° horizontal panoramas (500 × 3000 pixels). These panoramas are sometimes geometrically warped to correct for the 15° tilt of the camera.

First generation... "noise and dirt cleaned up... the anomaly is still there in the upper right corner. A pattern of spheres very similar to the 'Peekaboo" we have seen in other images.



Second generation... A simple gamma adjustment to bring out the details of the anomaly.



Below is a series of enhancements. This is either a:

1) photographic glitch (though this was on the video not a still shot);
2) it's another "Peekaboo" watching over an Earth spaceship;
3) its the "Tower" that has become famous from just one Lunar Orbiter image. (See below)



I don't know if this image is in the right area of John's "Tower", but it has the same "look and feel" of that other anomaly. My personal choice is #2 as the spherical cluster of the "Peekaboo" class of anomalies have shown up in many NASA photos to date. Until I find other evidence, this is where I will catalog this anomaly.

The "Shard" LO-III-84M
This photo is NOT available in any Lunar Orbiter Data Set that I know of. If anyone can find it please point us to it. The image below is from a 16x20 image scanned from one of John's collection of original photos



The "Shard" and the "Tower"
These two images are circulating on the websites...






Hope that answers your question, Loofo

Every now and then we get lucky and the censors actually miss something...




The original full size image is available here at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal

The image above is another one the censors missed. Its easy to see why... at a glance this looks like nothing but craters and moon dust, (though a lot of terrain looks exhibit neat rectangular rows )

But upon closer inspection, there is one of the best anomalies I have seen tucked away neatly into a crater. This image came to me from an anonymous member from ATS in good standing with the Pegasus Research Group via email. Below the area of interest is circled. You can download the original high resolution image by clicking on the photo link above and see it for yourselves, as I am sure you will do

This one does not need any enhancement save enlargement to glare out at you so it should make ArMap happy



[edit on 23-2-2007 by zorgon]

Now here is what I found in that little innocuous crater...








As Toadmund would say:

"No mystery here, move along people...."

:bash:

[edit on 23-2-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon
Hope that answers your question, Loofo

I was sure you had something like that in mind. I too saw this feature in the background, did some "gimping" and to be honest I think it is onls a mountain in the background even if there are some white spots... poor image quality.

The shard. That is an interesting feature. Don't know what to do with it. It does not look solid. It's more like an organic structure. And this star on top of it that seems floating above everything. Again to poor image quality too seriously make statments. But we cannot rule out it is nothing.
And it is the only picture of it. Is it on the far side of the moon? If not than it should be possible to see it with a reasonable professional telescope. ??

Originally posted by looofo And this star on top of it that seems floating above everything. Again to poor image quality too seriously make statements. But we cannot rule out it is nothing.

The "star" or cross above it is a Reseau Mark, or fiducial mark...

Fiducial Marks on Lunar Orbiter Images

Another image that has been circulating is the "Mega Cube" It has me a little confussed as the image shows a "cube" but that cube is merely the fiducial mark greatly enhanced to reveal the "tower" in the background. The description accompanying the image seems to indicate [Enterprise Mission] that the cube in the title is NOT the cube that you see... Like I said that whole thing still confuses me and I will need to study it more.



What gets me is the quality of the image... Its LO III all the others are clear... this one is not... and there is NO official info that I have found on this one

And it is the only picture of it. Is it on the far side of the moon? If not than it should be possible to see it with a reasonable professional telescope. ??

So far as I know this is the only image available of it as I can not find this one in any Lunar Orbiter Archive. Hoagland has posted this for decades... John has talked about it in many threads, and I know he has the original image in his collection


[edit on 23-2-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by looofo
I too saw this feature in the background, did some "gimping" and to be honest I think it is onls a mountain in the background even if there are some white spots... poor image quality.

There are no mountains anywhere near that high in the Sinus Medii. That object is 6 miles high.

The shard. That is an interesting feature. Don't know what to do with it. It does not look solid. It's more like an organic structure. And this star on top of it that seems floating above everything. Again to poor image quality too seriously make statments. But we cannot rule out it is nothing.

That is not a star, it is a reseau mark used for location of objects on the photo.

And it is the only picture of it.

I believe LOIII-84M (this photo) is the only photo of the shard. However I believe there are at least 2 others photos showing the tower.

Is it on the far side of the moon?

No it is dead bang smack in the middle of the moon as we see it.

If not than it should be possible to see it with a reasonable professional telescope. ??

No you can't see it with a telescope. Like most objects of any size on the moon it is made out of a glass-like material that is invisible from earth bound telescopes.

The only way Lunar Orbiter III got a shot was to have the sun behind it.

Originally posted by zorgon
Another image that has been circulating is the "Mega Cube" It has me a little confussed as the image shows a "cube" but that cube is merely the fiducial mark greatly enhanced to reveal the "tower" in the background. The description accompanying the image seems to indicate [Enterprise Mission] that the cube in the title is NOT the cube that you see... Like I said that whole thing still confuses me and I will need to study it more.

The large circular white spot you see supported by the tripod in the back of the shard is the 'cube'. It doesn't look like a 'cube' in these enlargements but on a first or second generation of LO-3-84M it looks like a cube. (Refer to "Penetration" Ingo Swann Pg. 37 para. 4).

I have been promised a '2nd' generation of LO-III-84M by RCH. If I ever get it I will post it.

Originally posted by zorgon
Here is the lighting angle:

nstrument: High-resolution Camera
Instrument Resolution (pixels): N/A
Instrument Field of View (deg): 20.4 x 5.16
Filter: Clear
Illumination Incidence Angle (deg): 80.46
Phase Angle (deg): 69.75
Instrument Look Direction: N/A
Surface Emission Angle (deg): 10.78

Now the shadow it makes is roughly three times the size of the object (at least the part of it that we see before it blends into the crater...

Now this should be enough info to tell me how tall [approx] this object is...

No, it is impossible to know the size of the object using the size of the shadow if you do not know the angle between the light source and the surface where the shadow is projected.

If the surface is curved (as I think it is) then it is even more difficult to know the size of the object by the size of its shadow.

The "Wandering Boulders" appear to move in spurts judging by the track pattern.

Have you ever seen an object with a irregular surface but an average round surface rolling? Something like a "Wobbly Ball", for example. When an object like this gathers momentum it keeps on moving but sometimes it looks like it is going to stop, but the momentum it has is still enough to make it roll over one of the higher areas of its surface, and when it passes over that higher area it gathers a little more momentum and so it looks like it is going to stop but it keeps on rolling for almost as long as a smoother-surface ball.

There are also smaller rocks near the large moving one that do not move.

This begs the question:
Why are only those rocks moving? What forces could act to make a huge 75 foot plus boulder move and yet leave smaller rocks beside it untouched.

Must be "selective gravity"

Probably, what makes it move is the lack of support, the same thing that makes land-slides.
Suppose that those rocks (remember that there are at least 5, if I am not mistaken) are just normal rocks, doing what rocks usually do (nothing, as far as I know), but suddenly, maybe because of the changes of temperature that make the rocks expand and contract, a smaller rock that stops that huge boulder from rolling down hill breaks. Without that support the rock starts rolling, and if it travels down hill for long enough it could gather enough momentum to keep rolling for some time, until it stops because it does not have enough momentum to keep on going over that surface or because something, like another smaller rock, appeared on a spot where it worked as a blocking device, stopping the rock from keep on rolling.

The strenghth of the gravity is irrelevant, the energy the rock has from being at a certain height is enough to bring it to the same height again if there is no friction.

Originally posted by zorgon
This one does not need any enhancement save enlargement to glare out at you so it should make ArMap happy

Yes, that is the kind of photo I like, I am happy with that.

A clear photo, with enough resolution to see the "anomaly".

I obviously see it, and I do not have the slightest idea of what that could be, very good find.

Originally posted by ArMaP
I obviously see it, and I do not have the slightest idea of what that could be, very good find.

Been saving that one for awhile

Nice pic of Newton Zorgon

Now about this rolling rock thing. What I see most posters missing here is gravity is not the only force at work on the Moon. Electrostatics plays a major role.

Given a set of circumstances, such as composition and weight of the rock, it is conceivable a strong electrostatic force could push/pull the rock uphill. Higher charges existing within depressions could steer the rock, and its track in the dust could help insulate and augment its electrical charge. A solar electrical storm could build up charges on a specific area resulting in its unseating.

Of course I could be wrong, and it could be entirely different, perhaps a magnetic anomoly, but from my studies electrical charges are a likely candidate.

Originally posted by zorgon
Now here is what I found in that little innocuous crater...

As Toadmund would say:

"No mystery here, move along people...."

:bash:

[edit on 23-2-2007 by zorgon]

I posted a while back that in my honest opinion I was not seeing details of structures, walls, tubes, ect... But, I have to come back and be honest again.

Those pictures of that crater with a wall structure and what looks like gases rising is simply a smoking gun for me.

Also, I have to say that the quality of some of these recent picutres/anomolys are far better than what we were looking at in the earlier pages.

Just wanted to let you guys know that Iam seeing what you are seeing at least in the picture above of the high quality picture of craters. I see rectangular wall like structures with what seems to be gas rising from it.

Im shocked, amazed, and kind of mind boggled as to what this all means is happening. Good Work All!

Originally posted by Matyas
Given a set of circumstances, such as composition and weight of the rock, it is conceivable a strong electrostatic force could push/pull the rock uphill. Higher charges existing within depressions could steer the rock, and its track in the dust could help insulate and augment its electrical charge. A solar electrical storm could build up charges on a specific area resulting in its unseating.

It would be needed an immensely strong charge to pull a rock.

And it would be needed an isolating ground, the electrostatic charge would only be static if it was on an isolating medium, and then all other things not charged and charged with the opposite charge would be pushed towards that charged area, not just a huge boulder.

Of course I could be wrong, and it could be entirely different, perhaps a magnetic anomoly, but from my studies electrical charges are a likely candidate.

Magnetism presents more or less the same problem, it would be needed a very strong magnetic field, and it would be needed that only that rock would react in that way with the magnetism.

Originally posted by ArMaP
No, it is impossible to know the size of the object using the size of the shadow if you do not know the angle between the light source and the surface where the shadow is projected.

I hate that word "impossible"

Well how about a "best guess"? Even Spock did that... once.. And your theory that they are indeed rock is also just a "best guess"


And judging by the shadows of others in the immediate area I would say at the very least it's twice as tall as wide... I am really curious about the material its made of too as it is several degrees brighter than the surrounding rocks... Maybe its pure titanium Lemme get my rock pick

Originally posted by JbT
Those pictures of that crater with a wall structure and what looks like gases rising is simply a smoking gun for me.

Actually I prefer the more appropriate term to the topic..'

"A Still Glowing Phaser Cannon" but thank you for returning. Part of the reason for the images is we are getting better at finding and processing and part is the fact that old images are resurfacing from several sources including NASA. But the main source is still anonymous people sending us the finds. There are litterally millions of images from over 40 years of space photography... Even NSA misses some, though it is very disturbing to find out just how many of the images are NOT available... They are listed by catalog number, by sequential numbering and high resolution images are discussed in several papers, enough to make us drool... yet the images are no where to be found

You realize of course that know you won't get any sleep anymore? Happened to me too... when I first spotted one my mind could see...

Im shocked, amazed, and kind of mind boggled as to what this all means is happening. Good Work All!

Welcome to the club and on behalf of all the researchers, thanks for the kind words

Regarding this rolling rock thingy... I can't see how the heck this thing can move such a distance without external force and leaving a relatively consistent track. In order to move this object that distance through undulations and inconsitencies in the surface, it would needed sufficient pace that it would bounce and leave breaks in the track. Otherwise it would have stopped way before hand. No?

I await flaming or an education accordingly.

Thanks.

AHEM...
zorgon said:

"Every object persists in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it."

The "Wandering Boulders" appear to move in spurts judging by the track pattern. There are also smaller rocks near the large moving one that do not move.

My (IMO) answer is here that I gave on the prevous page.

2)Who said it stops and starts? The patterns are from the rock surface features, like I explained about the stone head making faces. The rock also as it rolls it bounces in the low gravity along the terrain.

If one rolls a basketball down a sandy hill (especially on the moon)
what does it do?
It bounces,it leaves impact marks in the dirt. But what if I said it stopped and restarted? Then why would it leave such a deep impression if it merely stopped?
No, these rocks were on a bouncy roll leaving their mark.

That walled compound is interesting, to the point where I would almost dismiss artifacts of enlargement. And of course the shard, what is it, it could not have come from space, no impact and is intact. Is it a monument. Or could it be a rock blasted out of a comet impact zone that landed there?

See, you people must understand that nobody likes a good mystery better than me, I devoured books about UFO's and space when I was a kid (non-fiction)
But as you get older, Occams razor factors in a lot more than it did before (if it would only shave me) I go through a process of skeptism first, I rule out the obvious, then it only becomes a mystery when all other explanations are exhausted.

zorgon, I am not picking on you, I merely disagree with you, and that is a good thing, it keeps everybody on their toes and digging a little deeper.
When does a person admit they may be wrong?

I stated the evidence as I see it, and I come to the conclusion that these rocks are going downhill.

PS, this to me is reminiscent of that 'seagull' UFO

[edit on 23-2-2007 by Toadmund]

Originally posted by Toadmund
If one rolls a basketball down a sandy hill (especially on the moon)
what does it do?
It bounces,it leaves impact marks in the dirt. But what if I said it stopped and restarted? Then why would it leave such a deep impression if it merely stopped?
No, these rocks were on a bouncy roll leaving their mark.

Well, I wouldn't post my question without considering this answer as it was already posted so if that's the best explanation we have, then I'm happy with my own conclusions... that it's inconclusive.. and unlikely to be a naturally occuring event at this juncture.

Given the distance, size and potential mass of the objects, undulations in surface, inconsistencies of the surface of both the object and terrain, the force required and the speed required to achieve said distance and the lack of "break" in the trail due to bounces, I just don't think a "bouncy roll" cuts it.

Not to be argumentative, just trying to clarify my thoughts, and thank you for that. I will await further input.

I heartily agree on the "square" in that crater. But then I was convinced early on in the Strip Mine thread.

Awesome work Zorgon. I will admit that I am one of those that can't see a thing in most of these images but in a select few, I most certainly can, some anomolies are simply blatant. House of cards anyone?

Given the distance, size and potential mass of the objects, undulations in surface, inconsistencies of the surface of both the object and terrain, the force required and the speed required to achieve said distance and the lack of "break" in the trail due to bounces, I just don't think a "bouncy roll" cuts it.

I didn't necessarily mean to imply it actually had to leave the surface, I should have been more clear.
What I meant was varying indentations as the rock rolls. The dents are more pressed in in the dark area at the top of the pic. meaning that rolling down a mountain this thing puts more deeper indents in it's path, leaving shallower indents as it slows along the foothills.
I think using the bouncy ball analogy was a bit over dramatized for clarity.
My mistake.