New 32-4822 oddity

Hey everybody,

I've been going through "Dark Mission" (the new Hoagland book) and have been independently going through trying to do my own image work to see if his claims hold up. While looking at the now infamous AS10-32-4822 image - source of the "castle" and supposed "Los Angeles" ruins (no comment) I did notice something that I'd not seen anywhere else. Here is the original image courtesy of Keith Laney's archives:



I noticed that at the rim of the crater in the center of the image on the right hand side (Manilius Crater) there appears to be small semi-translucent curved rim on the side of the crater wall.



This crop was taken from Laney's copy of the image and I've only done a slight levels adjustment to attempt to clarify the object.


Anybody have thoughts on this one?

-S

You have to point it out better because all I see is a rather blurry photograph of a crater. The surroundings look normal, the crater look normal, the sky is very poor quality.

Here's a quick mock-up from Photoshop. The blue line is the crater wall while the orange line is what stuck out to me as being rather odd and out of place. Compare this to the unmarked photo and let me know what you think.



-S

Sorry, but you're picking at straws here

It seems to be a somewhat smaller crater inside the larger one. The "stepped" effect is, IMO, causing the inner crater to look like a dome.

But as John Lear says, I could be wrong.

reply to post by 3_Libras


That is quite possible. Too many late nights reading this stuff and staring at blurry zoomed pics of the Moon and Mars can do that to a man. Still looks strange though.

-S

When looking at something in grayscale it is very easy to see transparency where there is none. It's because of the regular nature of the contrast.

Originally posted by neuralfraud
When looking at something in grayscale it is very easy to see transparency where there is none. It's because of the regular nature of the contrast.

You are right.
Many odd shapes are the result of the impact, and almost all can be explaned:
from the odd shapes to the odd colors. And in this case, as you pointed out, there are even the photo-related variables.
Besides, the best way is always to "cross" a single image, like that one, with other ones, possibly in top-view. So far, i haven't been able to find one with satisfactory resolution, anyway...


ottawa.rasc.ca...
www.damianpeach.com...

Formation of Impact Craters [.pdf file]
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Impact Crater Formation
NASA Engineering Briefing [.pdf file]
/ywwzpy


Lunar Impact Crater Geology and Structure
www.lpi.usra.edu...

The Moon
www.lpl.arizona.edu...

NOW THAT'S THE REAL LEGIT PICTURE!

The picture that has actually stars in it!

Thank you, my friend!

I marked something, do you think these two or one looks like houses?



[edit on 17-12-2007 by TheoOne]

reply to post by TheoOne


Those would have to be some pretty big houses! You have to remember the massive scale of this image, on the order of around several tens of miles above the surface.

I'd dare say pareidolia might have it's sinister little hands in this one, as it often does.

reply to post by TheoOne

No that's a mound. There's plenty on the moon. If there's something I hate its when people pick out a single item when there is plenty of similar items on the same picture. That's when I make a simple judgement: their eyes want to see something. Sorry, but I do.

Btw, I'm not so sure that is actually stars. Look at the whole picture. There are multiple white dots over the terrain too. So unless the moon is transparent or there exist miniature stars between the moon and the camera...

[edit on 17-12-2007 by merka]