The Secrets of Schröteri Crater

Originally posted by tauristercus
@ Zorgon

I sent you a U2U regarding a potential explanation for the unusual trail created by the artifact.
You haven't commented on it so I may as well present it here for general consumption.

Oops... sorry about that... I missed it as it wasn't highlighted

Nice explanation... will add it to the page later tonight

There is also a problem with the scatter dispersal given the several 'broken pieces of boulder' observed objects positional center of apparent mass in the given distribution in relation to the "downhill" track and relative center of mass relative to inertial velocities.

In short the dispersal pattern of the debris is not in accordance with the physics of inertial vectoring one would expect to find.

Also one would expect some form of observable mound in a "braking" position FOR ALL PIECES of debris that would indicate their vector of impact as the momentum was exhausted on breaking .

Originally posted by Silverlok
There is also a problem with the scatter dispersal given the several 'broken pieces of boulder' observed objects positional center of apparent mass in the given distribution in relation to the "downhill" track and relative center of mass relative to inertial velocities.

In short the dispersal pattern of the debris is not in accordance with the physics of inertial vectoring one would expect to find.

Also one would expect some form of observable mound in a "braking" position FOR ALL PIECES of debris that would indicate their vector of impact as the momentum was exhausted on breaking .

what? you a rocket scientist?

any slacker boarder knows if you hit a squid on killer run, everything is in the air, dude. yard sale for miles.



the agony of defeat, so to speak.

but awesome vocab in that post!

"rocket" scientist? WTF? ROCKET SCIENCE IS LAST CENTURY you hip border, what century are you actually in ? Right now it seems like two, BUT THANKS AND WORDS ARE MORE THAN FORM .

Originally posted by Silverlok
"rocket" scientist? WTF? ROCKET SCIENCE IS LAST CENTURY you hip border, what century are you actually in ? Right now it seems like two, BUT THANKS AND WORDS ARE MORE THAN FORM .

i believe it is correctly said as "rocket science is SSSSSOOOO last century"

just joshin ya, but my complement still stands.

looks like perhaps liquid flowed from that thing. perhaps its turning soil into fuel, water, etc...?? didn't nasa say that such a thing would be possible?

reply to post by zorgon


Hmm, so that is how our sister moon keeps her nice powdery complexion. Still, if those winds were strong enough to move those boulders, then we should see these tracks all over the place, like out in Death Valley.

I am sticking with cowboy, we just need to find those cows.

reply to post by zorgon


Oops double post.

reply to post by tauristercus


Nice theory, makes sense.

Could be our cowboy looking for his lost herd.

hahahahaha and thanks, wait I am suppose to make this post relevant: the secrecy and 'disclosure' in the ridiculous nature of the LROC images insults even the dumbest of REAL scientists and actually the physical nature of reality is why can't we figure out how to take photographs WHEN ENOUGH LIGHT IS ON THE SUBJECT FROM MULTIPLE ANGLES IN COLOR IN 2010 (or eleven).

A moment Asside: The number 3 telsa loved it perhaps it is how we should all post

Hmm interesting picture
Ok, so I downloaded the image as tiff format so it isnt compressed. And used 3d studio max ,used the tiff image of the moon surface as a displacement map.
For those who dont understand it is like this:
I took this image




And inverted its colors so the higher areas are white and the lower are dark. The displacement map uses an algorithm that shows the whites as high ground and the grays or blacks as low ground.
So the inverted picture is this




And the elevation in 3d looks like this..
The red object is over the "boulder" to indicate its position

www.vimeo.com...

As you can see the tracks originate from a lower elevation than the final position of the object.
So if its a bolder it need to go uphill a little.
I also want to add that this is not the correct elevation and the sun position has some influence on the elevation (it adds some white color where in reality it wouldnt exist) also if someone has the same picture but with the sun at 90 angle it would be perfect.

I hope I make sense it is 5am here.

nice but with jpl/nasa/anyone associated with them can you assume angle , declivity or inclination? and if you invert the slope how do you explain the terrain? if so explain your observations, horribly we have to wait for your video for a number of hours .

"There is also a problem with the scatter dispersal given the several 'broken pieces of boulder' observed objects positional center of apparent mass in the given distribution in relation to the "downhill" track and relative center of mass relative to inertial velocities.

In short the dispersal pattern of the debris is not in accordance with the physics of inertial vectoring one would expect to find.

Also one would expect some form of observable mound in a "braking" position FOR ALL PIECES of debris that would indicate their vector of impact as the momentum was exhausted on breaking ."
AN ANSWER ANYONE

Originally posted by poet1b
I am sticking with cowboy, we just need to find those cows.

The 'cows' are over on Mars
www.abovetopsecret.com...

wow great post..thanks!

reply to post by defiler


very nice! i never really thought about that.

Originally posted by aceace
In late Oct 2004 during a full moon I witnessed two black dots orbiting the moon this happened on consecutive nights at about 9:30 PM. I assumed that this was something that was supposed to be there orbiting. I also thought that maybe this was one object and the other was a shadow. These objects traveled in a straight line passing the bright side in approx. 1.5 minutes and disappearing over the horizon and reappearing in its original starting point. I researched the internet quite thoroughly and could find nothing, this was also at a time while the shuttle was grounded due to the crash over Texas. I subsequently contacted by email, several prominent astronomers. The replies that I received said that they know of nothing currently orbiting the moon and that anything up there you would not be able to see in 5 inch (130mm) telescope. It was at this time that I realized that we are not being told many things. I'm also sure that much of the mystery of the moon we will never figure out.

I have seen these also. They are not up there every night. They are really big and cast a noticeable shadow on the moon.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c5ba6015443.png[/atsimg]



Nice Thread Zorgon and Exuberant1

LS1

Originally posted by LSWONE
I have seen these also. They are not up there every night.

Well I am still waiting for that flight schedule

Originally posted by tauristercus
However, there is a much more "cleaner and satisfying" explanation for the track creation.

"Cleaner and satisfying"? What does that mean?

Occam's razor certainly would be satisfied as well as lending credence and weight to the hypothesis that it's a manufactured artifact ... hence, artificial.

I don't think so, you have to force some things for that explanation to be the most likely.

Now the artifact stops and executes a clockwise turn of 90 degrees so it's facing photographic "east". This turn is executed on "the spot".

How does that explain the fact that the leftmost track doesn't change direction? Wouldn't a "on the spot rotatio" leave marks on both tracks?

So, we have a very simple explanation for the track based on "intelligently directed" as opposed to "natural" movement. Thereby adding strong circumstantial evidence of artificiality.

Only if you can explain the leftmost track being uninterrupted.

If the artifact is indeed artificial, then it's a given that it will be in communication with Earth controllers.

No, it may be artificial and not related to Earth, but let's assume it is.

Now I would have assumed in that case that it would have onboard telemetry feeding through a parabolic dish. This dish would normally be slaved to always point at the Earth to enable continuous transmissions in both directions.

Second assumption.

Now, if the slaving mechanism fails, then the only way for the artifact to receive regular mission updates would be for it to periodically stop it's movement (in this case northwards), PHYSICALLY ROTATE it's body until the parabolic dish re-acquires the Earth signal (now facing towards photographic east) ... receive the update ... then rotates back to it's original mission heading (northwards).

Third assumption.

And obviously mission control would not let the artifact travel too great a distance with faulty onboard communications without instructing the artifact to stop regularly and reacquire the signal.

Only if they didn't know where the artefact was, so that implies that the artefact wasn't also able to know its surroundings.

Simple assumptions that fits the observed image details and easily explains the artifact and it's puzzling track pattern.

Only one assumption (that they are rocks) is simpler.

Although I don't think your explanation is the right one (or even likely), it was a great example of how to use imagination and logic to try to find an explanation.

Originally posted by defiler
The displacement map uses an algorithm that shows the whites as high ground and the grays or blacks as low ground.

The brighter areas are the sides of the rille that are facing the Sun, wouldn't that make those areas as being the lower ones (seeing that you used the "negative" image) while the the areas in the shadow would appear as higher areas?

Could you do that you a known area so we can see if it works?

Thanks in advance.