Lunar Orbiter III, Photo 3085: Treaded Vehicle

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
I've circled it in red in each of the photos up until the closest enlargements. It's obvious.

Yes, it is obvious it is just rocks

A few years ago a coined a phrase "pixillated blur" in reference to pictures like this. Seriously, some people will see Marylin Monroe and some a bag of Doritos in this picture, depending on the mood. There is simply no merit in this "find".

I really did expect an amazing pic of a treaded vehicle on the Moon, and now I'm presented with... this

reply to post by cerebralassassins


That is a dome of once molten rock that solidified after the crater was created by electric arc machining. Similar to the image below to demonstrate the effect.



Electric Cratering

reply to post by eManym


Looks cool but what does it have to do with craters on the Moon? Seriously?

reply to post by pinobot


I agree, size doesn't really matter. However, one of the questions I asked was: If it is a vehicle, and if it is ours, then how did we get something that big up there?

Consider the size of a Saturn 5 rocket, which this vehicle would be much much bigger than.

Anyway, it doesn't look like a vehicle to me, a portion of the outline(the left side), which the OP has drawn, should be in shadow, as the sun is roughly in the 1 o'clock position, but its not.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I offered an answer to a question asked by a previous poster. I prefer to leave it at that because it is off topic from the OP.

Originally posted by eManym
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I offered an answer to a question asked by a previous poster. I prefer to leave it at that because it is off topic from the OP.

I don't think it's that much off topic, as the question was apparently regarding a feature of the lunar surface, and the OP is apparently regarding another feature of lunar surface. So we are looking at a crater in this instance. You mention an electric arc. I hope you understand that I'm confused by this non sequitur of astronomical proportions.

reply to post by this_is_who_we_are


Absolutely nonsensical cloud watching...

reply to post by this_is_who_we_are



What is that in the top right corner?

reply to post by TWILITE22


Are you speaking of the crater with "the dome"? Already aware of it? Or did you see something else?

reply to post by buddhasystem

You mentioned the non sequitur nature of my reply. What is it that invalidates my argument? Considering a dome at the bottom of a crater as anything other than natural is absurd. I have been following the theories proposed by Thornhill and Talbott concerning the electrical nature of our universe. Their explanation of many crater anomalies is very plausible. Care explain what is invalid?

Originally posted by eManym
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You mentioned the non sequitur nature of my reply. What is it that invalidates my argument?

You are being coy or something here. You decided to slip in an argument without being specific about its nature, which is now revealed as "electric Universe", as this nonsense is known.

Their explanation of many crater anomalies is very plausible. Care explain what is invalid?

It's not plausible.

In addition, Talbott went squarely for most idiotic notions, such as:
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally inspired by the controversial theorist Immanuel Velikovsky, Talbott envisioned a congregation of planets physically close to the earth in ancient times in which "the five planets Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars and the Earth orbited the Sun as a single linear unit, which rotated about a point close to Saturn, before its break-up at the end of the Golden Age"

Duh.

The most reasonable thing to do would be to find another image of the same spot done in higher resolution. What usually happens with all these things is that once a higher resolution image is found, the artifact in question mysteriously vanishes like magic.

reply to post by buddhasystem


So, Talbott is a fan of Immanuel Velikovsky's work and catastrophism, no doubt. I only posted that I agreed with Thornhill and Talbott's theories concerning electric cratering. It explains anomalies such as domes in crater floors and other anomalies. What are your views on how the dome formed?

Originally posted by eManym
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

So, Talbott is a fan of Immanuel Velikovsky's work and catastrophism, no doubt. I only posted that I agreed with Thornhill and Talbott's theories concerning electric cratering. It explains anomalies such as domes in crater floors and other anomalies. What are your views on how the dome formed?

You can (I assume) google "impact crater" and read papers like this one.

The phenomenon is mechanical in nature and involves propagation of a shock wave in a material.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I am fully aware of how impact craters are formed. The image presented in this thread is not an impact crater. It is a crater with a dome shaped rock in its center. This is not an impact crater.

Your belief that all craters are formed by impacts is fine with me.

Originally posted by eManym
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I am fully aware of how impact craters are formed. The image presented in this thread is not an impact crater. It is a crater with a dome shaped rock in its center. This is not an impact crater.

You didn't do analysis on the central peak in this particular crater. You can call it a dome, someone else can call it a peak, and as you know the structure inside the crater can be quite complex with concentric rings and all that. There is no basis for the statement that "this is not an impact crater". It's literally baseless.

Your statement that it is an impact crater is based on the comparison of a particular type of crater. How would you know it to be an impact crater unless you are conjecturing all craters are formed by impacts, which they aren't.

There are chain craters, which when analyzed could not have been formed by impacts, craters with nothing but dunes at the bottom and craters with no central peak, just a flat plane.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Why would anybody believe a guy named J. Bond ?

This picture is filled with object, bickering over a few anomalies is not necessary.

Originally posted by eManym
Your statement that it is an impact crater is based on the comparison of a particular type of crater. How would you know it to be an impact crater unless you are conjecturing all craters are formed by impacts, which they aren't.

It's not a conjecture, it's a theory which is borne out in observations. There is a difference.

There are chain craters, which when analyzed could not have been formed by impacts

This is false. If an object fragments, you are bound to observe a grouping of craters, and the tidal mode of fragmentation will give you precisely the "catena" type of craters.

craters with nothing but dunes at the bottom and craters with no central peak, just a flat plane.

Nobody ever said that ALL craters MUST have the central peak, you are making a very feeble straw man argument here.