Finally! - A REAL Lunar Anomaly?

You may need to enable _javascript or add asu.edu to the whitelist if you have selective _javascript blocker.

Originally posted by The Shrike
However, I've tried to go to the LROC :: ACT-REACT Quick Map website so that I could have found the photo you did but all I wind up getting is a blank, black page.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Here you guys go, thought it would be fun to compare pictures. The left side is Google Earth, the Right side is LROC.

I tired to size up the craters as closely as possible, but it was very hard since Google's pic is no where near as detailed as LROC. Still, it's the very same area:

Hold it, just a minute! I just replied thanking you for finding the comparison image. After doing so I continued reading replies but, for some reason something made me come back and inspect your LROC image and, son of a gun, take a look at my screen shot of your images and see what my arrow points to! It is pointing to a straight, long "structure" that is in the same location as the left-side (or top) part of the >!

This changes things! The > shape was blamed on this or that but now that we have a high res image there is something there that corresponds to the upper half of the >!

LOOK AT THE THUMBNAIL!

Originally posted by PINGi14
Below is the crater in question cropped straight from only high-res uncompressed image of the crater available from LROC. Dimension was not changed meaning you can calculate the size of crater to be around 150m in diameter (~180pixels wide x 0.83m/pixel according to image data). Nothing was edited except slight histogram shift for better contrast/light balance.

Depending on your imagination, you may see nothing, or you may see a buzz of activity in and around the crater. It only highlights the current issue with even the best lunar surface data available to public. It's hard to prove anything as artificial at these resolutions and without color. Of course, NASA could always one day release an image containing something really big that looked very artificial and sitting in the open. Assuming such thing existed and NASA had the image of it, which I doubt.

original version
snip

rotated 180degree version (sometimes it gives different perspective for fresh look)

edit on 5-3-2012 by PINGi14 because: (no reason given)

Using your rotated image I've added a black arrow to point to the "long, narrow" area that corresponds to the upper half of the > shape. Look at my original image and what my arrow is point to and there's a correlation. It's a long shot but I wonder if there's a matching "long, narrow" area in the darkened (shadow) area of the crater!

It looks interesting, but I'm no expert on the matter so I haven't a clue if it's a true anomaly or not.

It could be a glitch in the camera or the film itself, or maybe not.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by The Shrike

 

Sure thing, let me post it here:

LROC Quick Map

My original reply is below from a few moments ago. But I persisted and was able to go to the website from a Google link so that I was successful in locking in to the crater. Whew! I love learning and this was a good experience for me. Thanks.

Thanks, but here is what I get for that link (photo below). I can go to the LROC website although once there, as a 100% novice, I'm lost!

Come on people! If you call yourself an expert and say you have been doing this for many years, be prepared to back up your claims with detailed evidence.

As far as I can tell, the OP did not do a single one of the following:

1) Compare the image with original source material.

2) Understand the technology used to produce the images you are looking at, including digital compression.

3) Provide details of the size of the object.

4) Do analysis, such as constructing a 3D model.

5) Obtain data from an alternative source.

6) Hesitate to jump to conclusions.

Once again, we are asked to believe a story based on pixelated data below the limits of resolution after image compression from a source not designed for scientific analysis. This just gets tired.

Here is a simple guide to doing research:

* Understand and check your data sources (scale, resolution, errors, format, limitations, provenance, reliability, repeatability all being understood)

* Make very conservative guesses and rule out only those that you can be absolutely sure are not correct

* Find a way to independently confirm your analysis/findings and present it for scrutiny by other experts

* Assume that you have made an error and actively look for it

* Make sure you respect the laws of evidence -- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

The biggest problems on ATS are inability to distinguish conjecture from evidence, to discern reliable sources of information from unreliable sources and a lack of understanding about science.

reply to post by twohawks


Umm common sense

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
reply to post by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx

 

A great man once said, if 98% of a phenomenon can be explained, where does that leave the 2%.

Personally I think is likely part of the 98%. I'm thinking a camera glitch but in the absent of proof my opinion is willing to be swayed.

ALS

Thank you, you put this perfectly. This is all I am trying to say!

reply to post by amongus


Looks like a crater in the first pic looks like a crater in the second in the third its pixalated and your judging the third pic?

In the first two pics look at the direction of the light?????
People that want to believe in things have a tendency to see whats not there.

Originally posted by XtraTL
Come on people! If you call yourself an expert and say you have been doing this for many years, be prepared to back up your claims with detailed evidence.

As far as I can tell, the OP did not do a single one of the following:

1) Compare the image with original source material.

2) Understand the technology used to produce the images you are looking at, including digital compression.

3) Provide details of the size of the object.

4) Do analysis, such as constructing a 3D model.

5) Obtain data from an alternative source.

6) Hesitate to jump to conclusions.

Once again, we are asked to believe a story based on pixelated data below the limits of resolution after image compression from a source not designed for scientific analysis. This just gets tired.

Here is a simple guide to doing research:

* Understand and check your data sources (scale, resolution, errors, format, limitations, provenance, reliability, repeatability all being understood)

* Make very conservative guesses and rule out only those that you can be absolutely sure are not correct

* Find a way to independently confirm your analysis/findings and present it for scrutiny by other experts

* Assume that you have made an error and actively look for it

* Make sure you respect the laws of evidence -- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

The biggest problems on ATS are inability to distinguish conjecture from evidence, to discern reliable sources of information from unreliable sources and a lack of understanding about science.

edit on 6-3-2012 by XtraTL because: Added checklist

It's a good thing that we have you here to protect us from speculation.

I got half way through your post and found myself having a hard time staying on that horse ..believe me it was a fall from on high.

I disagree with everything you wrote..all that I could get through.

Please keep posting things and feel free to make all the speculations you want..if I only wanted the opinion of "scientists" I would just read one of their many journals.

Peace

Originally posted by PINGi14
All they've done is release high-res 'posters' of a few uninteresting locations on the moon not unlike those HDTV videos from JAXA's Kaguya mission on Youtube.

China claims to have released the highest resolution images of lunar surface but that's total BS.

zeenews.india.com... Beijing: China today released a set of "world's highest resolution" lunar images taken by its second moon orbiter, Chang'e-2, as it braces to launch its next mission to land a rover to explore its surface.
www.planetary.org...

The Chinese map is made with images from Chang'e 2, the orbiter launched in October 2010 and currently stationed at the Sun-Earth L2 Lagrange point. It spent eight months mapping the Moon, collecting images for this global map and higher resolution views of potential landing areas for the first Chinese lunar lander, especially in Sinus Iridum. The highest resolution images are not incorporated into this 50-meter-resolution map yet, but perhaps that will happen later

The Chinese map looks different. It lacks the detail of the narrow-angle LROC images, but it shows more than the wide-angle LROC. Compare the two carefully - the Sun is at a higher angle in the Chinese image, so shadows are missing and topography is harder to interpret, and the range of grey shades is more limited, suggesting the original images had a lower bit depth. But resolution is clearly higher, about TWICE AS HIGH as in the NASA map.

www.space.com... Chang'e 2 lunar map is the highest-resolution view of the moon ever recorded, according to a Xinhua news agency report

Liu Dongkui, deputy chief commander of China's lunar probe project, reportedly said the Chang'e 2 lunar map is the highest-resolution view of the moon ever recorded, according to a Xinhua news agency report.

While other spacecraft, such as NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, have taken better photos of certain portions of the moon, the Chang'e 2 map is the most detailed view of the entire lunar surface, he added.

If there was anything interesting the Chinese found in their high-res data, you can bet the Chinese will be 10x worse than NASA in censoring and limiting what data gets released to the public.

Are you sure the Chinese will be 10x worse than NASA? And what if China improve their high resolution technology in the near future?

Seeing as how these occur at the edges where 2 frames meet to form the composite image I'm going to suggest that perhaps this is where the explanation lies.
You found a true anomaly, good eye.

Since they look just like the Phoenix lights the believer in me says this is something we have seen on Earth too.

S&F for your contribution here

~~ATA

reply to post by The Shrike


Sorry Shike, I'd gone to bed by the time you posted.

If you go to Google, and type in "LROC Image" one of the links you'll be shown is:

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

If you click on that link, it will take you to their home page. There will be a menu at the top of their page. Put your mouse on "Images" and a drop box will appear. At the bottom of that box will be "QuickMap". Click on that and it will take you to the quick maps section that I linked too. Make sure you have Javascripts enabled or else the site will not display correctly. I use Google Chrome. But I just tested it with Firefox and it worked fine also.

Your image with the arrow: yes I did find that interesting. What is it? Well it looks like a natural rock formation to me that is 40 to 50 meters long. However, it might explain why in the Google picture we see those dots. It might have been the old image trying to display things that sunlight is highlighting, because they are raised in elevation.

But that's just a guess from me. Without pictures from different angles, I can't say.

--------------------------------------------

Originally posted by XtraTL
As far as I can tell, the OP did not do a single one of the following:

1) Compare the image with original source material.

2) Understand the technology used to produce the images you are looking at, including digital compression.

3) Provide details of the size of the object.

4) Do analysis, such as constructing a 3D model.

5) Obtain data from an alternative source.

6) Hesitate to jump to conclusions.

The OP asked for people's opinions on what he had found. He did not put forth a doctorate thesis, nor is he required to.

1) Would be a good idea.
2) Would also be a good idea, but sometimes the way you learn this, is by posting here and asking in the first place.
3) Size details were there in the form of the pictures themselves: there was a scale listed. You do have eyes, don't you?
4) As a 3D modeler myself, having years of experience with 3DS Max and Blender, I can tell you now that there is not enough data in the pictures to extrapolate a 3D model without doing a LOT of guessing and assuming (something that you are putting down with your post). Hard to do an analysis of something that you don't know what it is, and the whole reason for posting was to ask other people what they think it might be.
5) That also is a good idea, and was done by many other posters on here. Again, this is a forum, not a college classroom. People come to ask questions. Not everything posted needs to read as a doctorate.
6) That's your subjective opinion: sometimes things discovered happen because someone had a "hunch" or a leap of faith. While assuming things is not always a good thing to do, I think this forum can do without any form of "Mind Police" thank you very much.

reply to post by The Shrike




As usual with theses things over active imagination wanting to find something and an overuse of zoom!!!!!!
Look at the image below zoomed in so far that you see the pixels!!!



Everything is made up of squares at that level that gives the strange edge to the shadow!!

Originally posted by XtraTL
Come on people! If you call yourself an expert and say you have been doing this for many years, be prepared to back up your claims with detailed evidence.

As far as I can tell, the OP did not do a single one of the following:

1) Compare the image with original source material.

2) Understand the technology used to produce the images you are looking at, including digital compression.

3) Provide details of the size of the object.

4) Do analysis, such as constructing a 3D model.

5) Obtain data from an alternative source.

6) Hesitate to jump to conclusions.

Once again, we are asked to believe a story based on pixelated data below the limits of resolution after image compression from a source not designed for scientific analysis. This just gets tired.

Here is a simple guide to doing research:

* Understand and check your data sources (scale, resolution, errors, format, limitations, provenance, reliability, repeatability all being understood)

* Make very conservative guesses and rule out only those that you can be absolutely sure are not correct

* Find a way to independently confirm your analysis/findings and present it for scrutiny by other experts

* Assume that you have made an error and actively look for it

* Make sure you respect the laws of evidence -- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

The biggest problems on ATS are inability to distinguish conjecture from evidence, to discern reliable sources of information from unreliable sources and a lack of understanding about science.

edit on 6-3-2012 by XtraTL because: Added checklist

The OP most definitely did NOT jump to conclusions, unlike many posters within this thread (which I find to be refreshing on this forum), nor did he claim expertise in any particular field. He offered the topic up for discussion without bias and accepted input from all sides. Your post is not only inaccurate, but condescending.

.

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by PINGi14
Below is the crater in question cropped straight from only high-res uncompressed image of the crater available from LROC. Dimension was not changed meaning you can calculate the size of crater to be around 150m in diameter (~180pixels wide x 0.83m/pixel according to image data). Nothing was edited except slight histogram shift for better contrast/light balance.

Depending on your imagination, you may see nothing, or you may see a buzz of activity in and around the crater. It only highlights the current issue with even the best lunar surface data available to public. It's hard to prove anything as artificial at these resolutions and without color. Of course, NASA could always one day release an image containing something really big that looked very artificial and sitting in the open. Assuming such thing existed and NASA had the image of it, which I doubt.

original version
snip

rotated 180degree version (sometimes it gives different perspective for fresh look)

edit on 5-3-2012 by PINGi14 because: (no reason given)

Using your rotated image I've added a black arrow to point to the "long, narrow" area that corresponds to the upper half of the > shape. Look at my original image and what my arrow is point to and there's a correlation. It's a long shot but I wonder if there's a matching "long, narrow" area in the darkened (shadow) area of the crater!

REALLY GOOD FIND!!!!

Now I wonder....were there "aliens" on the moon when they landed as some say? We will never know...we can only speculate.

This is really cool OP....

If there was something we could see on the moon (or somewhere else in space) in real time, would they (tptb) "allow" us to see it? I think not.

ok i see them. now what? when was this photo taken? are they coming to get us? if so,what ya gonna do?

Is someone implanting these things as kinda psy-op? Clear enough to induce desired thoughts but still deniable...

Hats off to boncho, shrike and others. 2 big thumbs up for them.Their work on this thread is well done and much appreciated. Negates my need to post images I came up with earlier last night while tearing this image down for analysis. This whole thread underscores nicely the fact that we do have some good resources to which we can refer when an image shows up that strikes us as odd.It may take a bit of time, but when a bunch of us pool our energy we can get to the bottom of things fairly quickly. This is one of the things about ATS that makes it a good forum to be part of. If anyone has an interest in the few images I came up with, message me and I'll be happy to send them to you for your scrutiny.

Moving on.

Originally posted by MamaJ
Now I wonder....were there "aliens" on the moon when they landed as some say? We will never know...we can only speculate.

Lunar surface 1969, Neil Armstrong >>God, what is that out there?... What the h... is that???... But this is unbelievable!...Whats there?>Whats there? Mission Control calling Apollo 11...>These "Babies" are huge, Sir! Enormous! OH MY GOD! You wouldn't believe it! I'm telling you there are other spacecraft out there, Lined up on the far side of the crater edge! They're on the Moon watching us!>What REALLY happened out there with Apollo 11?>It was incredible, of course we had always known there was a possibility, the fact is, we were warned off! (by the Aliens). There was never any question then of a space station or a moon city.>How do you mean "warned off"?>I can't go into details, except to say that their ships were far superior to ours both in size and technology - Boy, were they big! and menacing! No, there is no question of a space station.>But NASA had other missions after Apollo 11?>Naturally - NASA was committed at that time, and couldn't risk panic on Earth. But it really was a quick scoop and back again.>Hey, this is ours!