Alien Lunar "Walkway" Bites The Lunar Dust!

Looking around YouTube I happened upon this video which caught my attention as it sounded as if the UFOlogist responsible for it had found a lunar anomaly worth checking out. The presentation is slick and the narration is pleasant. But as I watched the video, something kicked in and I decided to investigate by going to a source for lunar photos that features the Digital version of the classic book on lunar photography, the Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas Of The Moon, to see if I could find the location and what it looked like compared to the image in the video in question.

Using the "List of Feature Names" I looked up the crater Rutherfurd. The photo IV-118-H3 was what I wanted to see for the photo shows a "streak" in the lower part of the photo that when blown up resembles the "walkway" claimed in the video. This "streak" is really a film processing blemish as explained in some websites. I present below the image one sees in the video plus a photo of the image by itself without the computer monitor surrounding the photo. Also the transcription of the narration of the most relevant parts. Then I include the photo that is found on the Atlas webpage. I had to find a large high definition photo of just the crater to show you that the photo processing blemish is what the UFOlogist fooled himself into thinking that it was an alien walkway.
Go to the YouTube video and see the presentation for yourself.

I do not know why his photo doesn't show the full length of the blemish but his photo looks cleaned up and that's the way NASA should have cleaned up IV-118--H3.

The YouTube video with the claim
TaiwanSCW - Scott C. Waring, UFOlogist
Alien Moon Structure NASA frame #126 of Lunar Orbiter Mission, UFO Sighting News.

"This is a structure on the moon near the crater Deluc (he pronounces it Deloose) L. ...what looks like a walkway going in a mountain on top of this structure and another roofing way on the bottom ... pretty amazing structure ... great detail here ... looks like it's standing up but it's not really standing on end ... I always thought this was standing on end 'til I found this higher resolution source (he proceeds to enhance the photo for additional detail) ... we do see something is there (he removes the enhancement) ... look at it this way just as NASA has it ... very unusual structure ... notice on the right and the left of it, it looks like a clear screen has been placed over it ... looks to me like NASA is trying to cover up the right of it and the left of it but for some reason they left a big gap in between where you can still see the building ... that's my opinion of course, but that's just my opinion."

www.youtube.com...



From above source but just the image:



The Digital Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas Of The Moon Photo Number IV-118-H3
www.lpi.usra.edu...




The large, hi-def photo from wikispaces
www.lpi.usra.edu...




Source for a large, high-def closeup of part of the above photo
the-moon.wikispaces.com...




Posting Work Written by Others
Going forward, if you post something that is not 100% your own writing or work you must use the EX TAG, post NO MORE THAN 10% of the original (or three paragraphs, whichever is least), and GIVE A LINK TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL. If the work you are posting is not on the internet, from a book for example, you MUST give a credit for that Book ( the title), its Author and Publisher.

Well presented thread....

Is it me or is that life form in the upper part of the crater? It looks like its leaning up against a nice rock looking at the camera! Just look straight center of image. kinda creepy!

Thank you.
It's nice to see someone posting alternative pics that clearly show the error many true believer types hold as proof for their convictions.

it's certainly be nice to see more side by side comparisons of the other more notorious coordinates that keep popping up, like the towers, 'mining sites', 'cities', and other such that always seem to be popping up.

I personally can't wait until we've a greater degree of much higher resolution photos, unaltered, to sift through, such that many of these claims will be settled.

I'd love it as well if there actually were alien leavings on Luna, but, sadly, I think such may not be the case, as much as many might 'want to believe'.

Clearly an alien polyethylene walkway.

No doubt about it.

Originally posted by mkultracrew
Is it me or is that life form in the upper part of the crater? It looks like its leaning up against a nice rock looking at the camera! Just look straight center of image. kinda creepy!

I sure would like to see what you're describing. How about using your hi-def image to crop the area so that we all can enjoy your flight of fantasy?

Originally posted by nineix

Thank you.
It's nice to see someone posting alternative pics that clearly show the error many true believer types hold as proof for their convictions.

it's certainly be nice to see more side by side comparisons of the other more notorious coordinates that keep popping up, like the towers, 'mining sites', 'cities', and other such that always seem to be popping up.

I personally can't wait until we've a greater degree of much higher resolution photos, unaltered, to sift through, such that many of these claims will be settled.

I'd love it as well if there actually were alien leavings on Luna, but, sadly, I think such may not be the case, as much as many might 'want to believe'.

Thanks, this one was an easy one to "debunk". The problems that I see with other offerings is that they don't have a clear image to work with, the image(s) usually is blurry, over-magnified that then results in pixelation, and/or they'll colorize the area which then loses it's originality. That's why no one has really posted a reliable image that one can take to the bank. This thread is really about a misconception.

I really would be most interested in the processing blemish was removed allowing more of the original image to be seen. And I'm also wondering if the same could be done with all of the Lunar Orbiter photos that show processing blemishes that a lot of folks are convinced are really on the surface of the moon because they're poor researchers, such as the creator of the video.

hi, i dont come in here to often but i seen something as you all did that simply wasnt straight up, not that i was expecting any less from nasa ;.

The Topographical location of those that show a sturcture and the onese supplied by google from the moon have nothing in common. I suggest someone take a look.

Location of the so called structure within google maps is

and obviously if one places the Hir R

es and the one from google you will see something that makes you ...huh..wtf. Someone is not telling us all the truth. Anyway, have a look and see what happens.

Originally posted by cerebralassassins
hi, i dont come in here to often but i seen something as you all did that simply wasnt straight up, not that i was expecting any less from nasa ;.

The Topographical location of those that show a sturcture and the onese supplied by google from the moon have nothing in common. I suggest someone take a look.

Location of the so called structure within google maps is

and obviously if one places the Hir R

es and the one from google you will see something that makes you ...huh..wtf. Someone is not telling us all the truth. Anyway, have a look and see what happens.

I have no idea what you are referring to so if you would be so kind as to post a photo, a source, anything that we can investigate and agree with you or disagree. You know the ol' saying: "A picture is worth a thousand words."

I don't see any significant discovery in this picture, merely think that this structure you point out is just a lost piece of the glued fault line that you see on other pictures by NASA ......

yes, i see my end of thread is a pure indication of how tired i was while i was posting.

So what i was referring to was that the picture supplied by the op and nasa when overlayed with what google moon supplies show two different topographical areas, either one of the two is wrong. You can all do this, spent about an hour looking at both images one ontop of another and could not find out why they don't match. Sure he resolution is different but the huge difference is somewhat freaky. Sure enough the location of the so called image on google moon shows something other than what is shown.

Go check it out.

Originally posted by cerebralassassins
yes, i see my end of thread is a pure indication of how tired i was while i was posting.

So what i was referring to was that the picture supplied by the op and nasa when overlayed with what google moon supplies show two different topographical areas, either one of the two is wrong. You can all do this, spent about an hour looking at both images one ontop of another and could not find out why they don't match. Sure he resolution is different but the huge difference is somewhat freaky. Sure enough the location of the so called image on google moon shows something other than what is shown.

Go check it out.

Here is what Crater Rutherfurd looked like on Google Moon a few minutes ago.



I tried to match the same size and crater placement on the frame as on the above photo. Since emulsion film was not used for this image there is no possibility of any film processing blemishes. However, being a digital image it is subject to digital glitches although as you can see it's a clean image.

Rutherfurd - 48 km - 60.9°S 12.1°W

You don't have to use the coordinates 'cause it puts you too high and then you have to magnify to suit. Just type Rutherfud and you will be taken to about the same size image as the thumbnail.

Originally posted by 0bserver1
I don't see any significant discovery in this picture, merely think that this structure you point out is just a lost piece of the glued fault line that you see on other pictures by NASA ......

I don't know from where you get your information but it's erroneous. Read below how NASA explains processing blemishes such as the "walkway" and a host of other imperfections sometimes claimed to be due to aliens!

www.lpi.usra.edu...

IMPERFECTIONS
Certain imperfections may be observed in some of the photographs. These imperfections are directly traceable to the method of film development, the readout system, the video data, or the GRE system.

Most photographs are not perfectly rectangular. This distortion was caused by a misalinement of the line-scan tube with respect to the mechanical scan direction. When the projected line was not perpendicular to the scan direction during readout, and the kinescope trace in the GRE system was perpendicular to the edge of the 35-mm film, then a noticeable tilt could be observed when successive framelets were laid side by side to reconstruct a complete frame.

Many framelets appear to have light and dark stripes running parallel to their edges. This effect was due primarily to an inherent nonuniformity in the light output of the scan system in the spacecraft that caused a variation in light intensity and affected the video signal level during a scan across the width of a framelet. Ideally, the level should be constant for a constant film density.

In some photographs small-scale streaks appear as bright white lines (see plate 297) parallel to the framelet edge. This condition was caused by phosphor granularity in the GRE kinescope tube.

The Bimat technique introduced several development imperfections that are scattered throughout many of the frames. Bimat stop lines (shown in plate 75) and Bimat pull-off lines (shown in plate 144) result from anomalous development conditions which occurred at the entrance to and exit from the development system. Two oval-shaped spots (shown in plate 92) appear near the center of the film and are associated with the location of the Bimat stop line; they follow it by about 10.7 cm (4.2 in.). "Lace" (shown in plate 116) appears as a spotted area of unprocessed film arranged in a random manner. The areas vary in size and location on the film and do not follow any pattern. Because of overlapping photography, the amount of data lost by these processing defects is small; their main effect is the spoiling of the appearance of the photographs.

Various other minor imperfections are scattered throughout the photographs. Occasionally, momentary dropout of the video modulation on the transmitted carrier caused extremely fine white lines to appear in the framelets (shown in plate 573). In plate 2 there appears to be an area of double exposure. This condition was caused by a failure of the film to advance completely after a photograph was taken; as a result, a medium-resolution image overlaps a high-resolution image. A few photographs (such as plate 344) have a blurred or out-of-focus appearance that was a result of water vapor condensing on the camera window. Once the problem was recognized, it was eliminated by closer control of the window temperature.