A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: Unnatural Features on Moon Surface

Thanks. I forgot to mention that you must use mouse scroll if you want to zoom in on the web-based pic. I usually just click on images to zoom but clicking just seems to take you to another page. So try scroll up to zoom in to full resolution which is 1920x1080. Also, the image is available for download if you click option at bottom left. I also pasted the link to the full image below but it might not be permanent.

lh5.googleusercontent.com...

Originally posted by PINGi14
The original image is about 4k by 4k pixels and there are many of them.

"4k by 4k pixels"? Are you talking about photos from the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth site?

Why don't you post the photo ID?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by PINGi14
The original image is about 4k by 4k pixels and there are many of them.

"4k by 4k pixels"? Are you talking about photos from the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth site?

Why don't you post the photo ID?

No, Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth is pictures of the Earth.

He means that his original format is over 4,000 x 4,000 pixels size and will be a large download.

As for refusing to link the original source photo, I would think by now that it's obvious. He's not here to add content to ATS and discuss, but is merely using ATS to advertise his blog, Youtube and Twitter accounts. Just look at his signature, and of course how he started this thread.

Pretty obvious.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
No, Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth is pictures of the Earth.

Not just photos of Earth, they have almost all of the Apollo missions photos, I have downloaded many photos from there, as they are (in my opinion) the best versions.

He means that his original format is over 4,000 x 4,000 pixels size and will be a large download.

Yes, that's more or less the format of the Apollo photos on the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth site, 4400 x 4600 pixels.

As for refusing to link the original source photo, I would think by now that it's obvious. He's not here to add content to ATS and discuss, but is merely using ATS to advertise his blog, Youtube and Twitter accounts. Just look at his signature, and of course how he started this thread.

Pretty obvious.

It looks like it, which is a shame.

Like I already said, supporting docs, references, etc will come when ready in a completed form. I don't know why anybody would go to the trouble of creating an elaborate image of lunar surface with countless surface anomalies and then post it on ATS of all sites to make money from it. You'd think there would be 'friendlier' sites for that. I contributed this never before seen image to ATS for some half-coherent analysis and feedback and I'm still waiting for some. Impossible to trust that I didn't go pixel by pixel and photochopped everything in the provided image?

reply to post by PINGi14


Thank you for sharing this picture. I see it, and I am mind blown.

Originally posted by PINGi14
Like I already said, supporting docs, references, etc will come when ready in a completed form.

But why don't you say what's that image ID?

That way we could look at it in its original format, that's just what I'm asking for.

I don't know why anybody would go to the trouble of creating an elaborate image of lunar surface with countless surface anomalies and then post it on ATS of all sites to make money from it.

Nobody is saying that you created the image, I (and I suppose other people) just want to see the original first, as I always do.

I contributed this never before seen image to ATS for some half-coherent analysis and feedback and I'm still waiting for some.

"Never before seen image"? That's only possible if you found the original in some hidden place instead of a public site (either http or ftp) or if you made it yourself.

Impossible to trust that I didn't go pixel by pixel and photochopped everything in the provided image?

No, but you said that the "processing is documented" and the image looks "processed", I (we) just want to see the original. Why the secrecy?

Edit: one question. Why does the image has a tif extension when seen on Google but when we save it it turns into a jpg?

Originally posted by PINGi14
I contributed this never before seen image to ATS for some half-coherent analysis and feedback and I'm still waiting for some.

In what way is this photo "never before seen"? Is it not in any of the Apollo image catalogues? Of course it's hard to find it when one isn't given the official catalogue number.

I also really dislike having to find whats supposedly wrong in the photo myself instead of you just pointing it out from the start. I think you'd get a better discussion if you did it that way. Making us have to try and figure out what it is you're trying to show tends to annoy most people here.

Originally posted by PINGi14
Like I already said, supporting docs, references, etc will come when ready in a completed form. I don't know why anybody would go to the trouble of creating an elaborate image of lunar surface with countless surface anomalies and then post it on ATS of all sites to make money from it. You'd think there would be 'friendlier' sites for that. I contributed this never before seen image to ATS for some half-coherent analysis and feedback and I'm still waiting for some. Impossible to trust that I didn't go pixel by pixel and photochopped everything in the provided image?

edit on 16-3-2013 by PINGi14 because: (no reason given)

The questions and requests here are exactly what you want to have if you want the image discussed. So those requests validate why you brought it to ATS, and once an original and your backup data is here, then you can be assured some very good people will discuss it. As you see on ATS, there are hundreds of threads about obviously fake things - UFO's, rocks on various planets and moons, and faces galore in the strangest things and places. The more serious people here want to assist in having a discussion of your image, but are cautious because of being "burned" in the past. Thanks for the pic and for sticking around.

Originally posted by superman2012
Are you all blind!?

You can't see the Superman symbol in the crater featured prominately in the pic? It's obviously guerrilla advertising for the new Superman movie! Hooray!

This brings up an entirely different but related subject. Quite a few of us looked at the pic and didn't see the Superman symbol, then "Superman2012", with an avatar of Superman, saw it immediatly. "Are you all blind?" was his honest response. This once again 'proves', as if we need proof, how much data our brain is taking in per moment, and the picture of the world it creates inside our heads. Lots of us missed it, Superman2012 saw it right there and was amazed we all missed it, and then when he told us our brains did the double-take bring-the-world-into-a-new-focus thing and there it was.

My favorite personal one of these world-creating circumstances was when I was walking and saw a snake in front of me. Within half-a-second or so the snake wriggled a bit as it crawled. Then my brain recognized it for what it was - a stick - and it became a stick. But it had held on to the "belief" that it was a snake just long enough to animate it. That was a personal learning-curve lesson for me in how the brain works.

What I meant by never before seen is that this image was never before seen in this particular state. There was a set of filters applied to image to remove noise among others with each step logged. Apologies for the confusion.

This link below still seems to be working and I am having no issues saving the tif file. Try again?
lh5.googleusercontent.com...

I was reluctant to identify the source because I am not prepared to release the processing steps yet. But I do understand why you'd want to know and see the source. Not like I'm hiding anything.


Download was found at archive.org: archive.org...
Download links: ia600507.us.archive.org...

Meta data
Apollo 8,Moon,Farside. Image taken on Revolution 8. Latitude 10 degrees South,Longitude 116 degrees East. Camara Tilt Mode: Low Oblique LO. Direction: Forward-West. Sun Angle 81 degrees. Original Film Magazine was labeled C. Camera Data: 70mm Hasselblad. F-Stop: F/5.6; Shutter Speed: 1/250; Lens 80mm; Film Type: Kodak SO-3400 Black and White,ASA 40. Other Photographic Coverage: Lunar Orbiter 1 LO I S-9, Lunar Orbiter 2 LO II S-14. December 21-27,1968.

Originally posted by PINGi14
Like I already said, supporting docs, references, etc will come when ready in a completed form. I don't know why anybody would go to the trouble of creating an elaborate image of lunar surface with countless surface anomalies and then post it on ATS of all sites to make money from it. You'd think there would be 'friendlier' sites for that. I contributed this never before seen image to ATS for some half-coherent analysis and feedback and I'm still waiting for some. Impossible to trust that I didn't go pixel by pixel and photochopped everything in the provided image?

edit on 16-3-2013 by PINGi14 because: (no reason given)

ETA: Never mind, we crossed posted and you provided the original data for the original images.

Thank you. NOW serious discussion of it can start.

Originally posted by PINGi14
This link below still seems to be working and I am having no issues saving the tif file. Try again?
lh5.googleusercontent.com...

I understand it now. If we click on the link we are shown an image, and when I save that image, even if it says ".tif" in the address bar, it's saved as a jpg. But if I right-click on the link and save, then it saves as a tif.

Download was found at archive.org: archive.org...

Thanks.

Originally posted by PINGi14

I was reluctant to identify the source because I am not prepared to release the processing steps yet. But I do understand why you'd want to know and see the source. Not like I'm hiding anything.

I'll explain why.

When people come on here to ATS and post pictures that they have found something, especially when it comes to the moon or Mars, we like to put it under the microscope. We like to know where this is on the moon or Mars.

This allows us to search for more recent pictures of the area. Too many times, people post 40 year old photos that are over exposed and lacking in detail, then they photoshop it quite a bit and claim that there are artifacts there, when in reality photoshopping the original 40 year old image will produce a lot of those artifacts that people claim are structures, buildings, etc.

You've provided us with a photo from the Apollo 8 mission. Specifically AS08-17-2744 that was taken with a 70mm Hasselblad. It's from the far side of the moon located at 10 deg S, 116 deg E.

Here's what the original looks like:



Here is a link to the low resolution archive:

AS08-17-2744

The good news is: The LROC has mapped that area quite a bit!

zoomed out image from the LROC:


This means we can zoom in with 0.5 meters of resolution to the entire area to see what it is that you have found.

If it's there, the more recent, very clear, very sharp pictures from the LROC will show it.

That's why we wanted to know where the original photo was taken.

My ceiling in my old house had that "stucco coat" on it.......

yea i used to get high and see all kinds of stuff. I am pretty sure if i stared at this long enough i could find Waldo

for you too.

Glad all is well. Perhaps this article from Prof. Paul Davies of ASU (where LROC is based) on searching for alien artifacts on the Moon may be relevant read for some readers. It was my introduction to the alien/ufo/seti topic.

Given its content, I thought it was interesting that Prof. Davies acknowledged in the article Mark Robinson (currently active Principal Investigator for LROC and heavily involved with Clementine mission) for 'helpful discussions'.


Article linked below
docs.google.com...

Originally posted by PINGi14
Glad all is well. Perhaps this article from Prof. Paul Davies of ASU (where LROC is based) on searching for alien artifacts on the Moon may be relevant read for some readers. It was my introduction to the alien/ufo/seti topic.

Given its content, I thought it was interesting that Prof. Davies acknowledged in the article Mark Robinson (currently active Principal Investigator for LROC and heavily involved with Clementine mission) for 'helpful discussions'.


Article linked below
docs.google.com...

And as your article you linked stated:

The LRO Laboratory at Arizona State University currently employs a small pool of students and faculty to search the NAC images for interesting features, but the photographic data is accumulating far faster than the students' ability to keep up. It would take a very long time at the current rate to survey the entire lunard surface, so some form of automation is needed.

So as you can see: we are not trying to debunk anything you've found.........yet. That might still happen.

But by giving us the coordinates of the picture, we can also take a look at the area if it's been photographed by the LROC (which it has).

For all you know, we just might find the very same thing that you are claiming is there!

Threads are more successful on here if the OP provides not just the photo they've messed with, but links to the original and other data as for where it was taken. Just ask any of the people here. It allows for more discussion in the thread, and can make the thread popular. It means you are constructively adding content to ATS.

On the other hand, providing only the photo you've done, means that the thread will consist mainly of those that almost always say "YEs! I see that!" and us who ask for the original photo. Pretty boring thread read.

They idea is not to prove yourself right (all though yes, you could want that), but to provide good discussion on these boards. That's what they are for. Even if people disagree with you and what you found, it still is something that people can enjoy reading and it means you are positive influence here on ATS.

Has PINGi14 spit out what we're suppose to be looking for yet, or is this still a debate over how to save the picture and look at it "correctly" so we can all see the same optical illusion?

Here is where I must ask you to be careful comparing any LROC image to highly oblique Apollo photographs. LROC imagery is essentially captured at vertical angle to surface. Very few highly oblique surface imagery have been taken/released in comparison. I think you would know that it is near-impossible to discern any sense of height from aerial images taken vertically such as the LROC. A 1000 meter high tower would literally appear as a dot on LROC images.

That is why the Apollo photographs are still valuable, as they are still the only source for highly oblique view of numerous areas of lunar surface providing the best height/depth definition. Thankfully some of these oblique Apollo photographs have started to become available in high resolution digital format, providing glimpses of what the Apollo astronauts saw from the Moon's orbit during oblique photo op.

Originally posted by eriktheawful

The good news is: The LROC has mapped that area quite a bit!

zoomed out image from the LROC:

This means we can zoom in with 0.5 meters of resolution to the entire area to see what it is that you have found.

If it's there, the more recent, very clear, very sharp pictures from the LROC will show it.

That's why we wanted to know where the original photo was taken.

edit on 16-3-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)

did you guys see the taun tauns and AT-AT's ?