Apollo14: unusual reflective objects on the ground at "Station B1".

reply to post by Phage


It seems that they played around with the backpack as well. Although this is being attributed to Google since there is no altered image in Apollo's folder, there are notices in that folder of background changes in the pan examples, mostly to do with the 'sky' for continuity.

Guess what its a rock so it doesn't float




So you can compare





Next!

Re-using Arken's image from google moon; even within this image there is a ridge of rock with a subtle highlight (Chiaroscuro) that indicates that the shadow underneath is logical given its shape. I have outlined the area in red; though I think there is probably a bisection between the lower foreground of the ridge and its upper portion somewhere in the middle halfway up.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Guess what its a rock so it doesn't float




So you can compare





Next!

edit on 24-11-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

If you are talking to me I know/knew it is a rock why do you persist, I was only ever interested in picture No1 which I knew was not right.

reply to post by smurfy

It's nearly impossible to create a panoramic mosaic without some fiddling around. Unless you have absolutely no sense of aesthetics. Why Google did this though, I have no idea.

reply to post by smurfy


Why ???? Did you start the thread NO so in wasnt directed at you

So for when Arken comes back my first post was 100% correct sorry Arken

reply to post by Arken


Looks like a blurry crashed shuttle from Star Trek on the moon, you can even see the warp nacelles. Maybe Zephram Cochrane's tomb?

reply to post by Phage

Neither do I, neither do I have any idea one way or the other who made up Arken's first picture. As you will know even in the Apollo album, there are various contributors who have made up the panning sequences, that adds to the complication. Then there are many of the pictures, (and used in the pannings) taken that were out of focus as per Apollo 14, just to complicate things even further, as many picture artifacts that look 'shiny and metallic' are just rocks. Arken's first picture appears to include some out of focus pictures in the background too, why that first picture should be attributed solely to google is not somewhere I would like to go though.

reply to post by smurfy

It's Mitchell's fingertips, disembodied from 9089. A bad stiching job on Google's part.

Exactly, I give you a star for that.

cAN man really survive for even 0.3 seconds on the moon wearing only a paper suit ? no .

so what is the point of the op . looney tunes need to _ wake up !

oh and they took a form of car there so they could drive around ? seriously - get real ! you are living in a dreamworld > wake the hell up NOW !

reply to post by Phage


Nice one I think google and co. are perhaps a little more interested in entertainment (and immersive experiential stuff) when it comes to the general public. . I really did laugh out loud. However, we would never have known this without Arken's keen eye. (that's not meant sarcastically). An anomaly was detected, debate ensued, and was identified. Without this full process true issues will go undetected - at leas that's how I 'see' it.

reply to post by Nightspore

Actually Google's goofs are known to be common. It doesn't really take a keen eye. And it doesn't really take much investigation to find the truth. A bit of critical thinking helps though.

Google is not making 'goofs'. They don't care. I never said that a lot of investigation was required. Arken did detect an anomaly, you have proved it yourself.

reply to post by Nightspore

It's easy to "detect anomalies". It's usually easy to find the source of the "anomalies". Arken didn't bother trying. He never does. He also has a hard time admitting it when his "anomalies" turn out to be nothings.

Sorry, Phage this is your personal speculatuion and I strongly disagree.

There is a lesson to be learned here. A lesson which has been presented many times. A lesson which has been ignored. Find something odd? Do some research. Use your brain. Apply some critical thought. Listen to what others are saying.

reply to post by Phage


Agreed. Critical thought is key. and research. (and i am personally pleased by your 'lessons' statement) I'm not going to get into an analysis of Arken (what he does is his business, I make my own judgements etc blah blah blah) But what do you base your idea that anomalies are easy to detect on? ATS? I know this will be seen as a 'weak' argument, but I see these kind of obsessions as a necessary part of the species; and maybe 99% of what is found turns out to be explicable, but these antennae which keep probing no matter what, in their relentlessness (just as you yourself are constantly eating these viral memes relentlessly, which I see as another necessary function) are part of the full bell curve of human curiousity. I dont know if I have made myself clear here. Oh well.

reply to post by Nightspore

Yes, I partly base my idea that "anomalies" are easy to find on the number of them which show up on ATS. But I've looked at a lot of pictures from the Moon, and Mars, and other stuff and I've found "things" myself. Not that I'm looking for them, I just find those pictures really interesting. They are of different worlds after all. But I don't jump online to say "Aha!". I look around to see if I can figure out what's really going on. And guess what? It turns out that it's nothing worth posting about or it's another boring sciencey thing that would be ignored on ATS.

Looking for oddities is actually what science is all about. What science is also about is not saying "Aha! This must be that!". It's about finding out what the oddity is.

What you say makes a lot of sense (different worlds are fascinating!); people do get very enthused and jump online.. I suppose I would just suggest (if I may be so bold) that to maybe to share those 'sciencey' things once in awhile, Science is also about achieving public knowledge through peer review - it is a collaborative effort. I wasn't myself specifically talking about science though, and I don't believe that that is the only route to knowledge. I also don't think it is to be taken lightly either. I sense you don't like it when people jump to conclusions, I get that. For myself I find it amusing, and occasionally interesting.

this one looks like R2-D2

reply to post by Phage


Dang, you're thorough! I have so much to learn. (Don't tell my girlfriend that!)