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

Here is a LRO shot of the same area, a side by side comparison:



Looks to me that the "object" is really just shadowing in that crater. Zooming in and pixel artifacts.

The white dot showing at the top of the 'obelisk' is not part of it. In fact, there are many white dots showing in the view and other areas on the lunar surface so they cannot be shadows. If they are not shadows, what could the white dots be?

I think the debunkers are going to have a field day with the animated image posted below but I am quite prepared to accept any constructive criticism even though I may be completely incorrect in thinking some of the objects are artificial.

Members posting on this thread should be familiar with the view of the area around Sherrington crater. So what is there to see in this particular image? The overall view shows many surface objects and some of them could well be possible structures. I would ask you to cast your eyes on the lower right quadrant as some of the shapes do not appear to be natural formations.

A larger animated view is available from the Direct link below.





Direct link:

i985.photobucket.com...

reply to post by arianna


What do you think a natural formation should look like, I said the dark object was a shadow at the bottom of page 5, erik confirmed that with an lro picture.

So why don't you also use the LRO pictures to show us your unnatural objects/formations

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by arianna

 

So why don't you also use the LRO pictures to show us your unnatural objects/formations

Because if the comparison image posted above by erik is anything to go by they are just not good enough to make a positive evaluation. That's the reason unless you know of better source.

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by arianna

 

So why don't you also use the LRO pictures to show us your unnatural objects/formations

Because if the comparison image posted above by erik is anything to go by they are just not good enough to make a positive evaluation. That's the reason unless you know of better source.

The problem is, and you've done this in many, many of your threads (yes I know this one isn't yours, you're only posting in it), is that your refuse, literally REFUSE to use or acknowledge the use of LRO images.

Your claim is always the same: because it only gives top down images.

Well, that's not always true. There are plenty of angled images from the LRO.

Yet instead, you insist on sticking with 40 year old photos. Many of the blurred, over exposed, and then manipulated by in (heavily I might add).

Any serious researcher does NOT depend on only one source. Ever. The more source they can have, the better. Because it can help validate what they are researching.

Yes, it can also destroy what they are researching. That's what happens when you really do research to get to the truth.

Yes, the TRUTH.

A serious researcher thinks: "Something might be there."

A irresponsible researcher thinks: "Something MUST be there."

I know you REALLY want stuff to be up there. And I myself would be drooling with joy and excitement if someone ever was able to show something very obvious that is in ANY image taken of the area and can be validated even with LRO images.

It would light a fire under the butts of those than can send probes and men back to the moon, and that would have me dancing in the streets! I would LOVE it!

But all I've ever seen (so far) is those that insist something is there, after manipulating images quite a bit, and depend on 40 year old photos, and who reject anything from other sources such as Clementine and the LRO.

Many members on here do that. I really do understand their need for seeing something. But unless they can validate it with other sources, especially those that can take images down to 0.5 meters per pixel, then instead I have to just shake my head.

If something is shown not to be there with better and later images, then move on. The moon is BIG. and as been shown, only a handful of people have scoured the LRO images. There could be something there but has not been seen by the students at Arizona State yet. They don't go over all the images in detail before they are put up on the internet.

Right now, there could be something that's not natural, but is not being found by enthusiasts like you, all because you refuse to use the images.

Here's a thread I did on the Apollo 20 Alien Ship Hoax that is a fine example how the LRO finally revealed what was really there:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I agree. If anomalous or artificial features are suspected in a photograph of lunar surface, decision should be made whether to investigate it further. Proper investigation must include scouring the net for any and all Moon surface images showing area in question from every mission dataset from Ranger to LRO.

Then compare these different versions of the same area and try to reach some kind of conclusion. It takes a lot of time unfortunately.

I see a lot of (what look like) structures, one looks like a dome with a round wall around it... Some square and rectangular appearing structures.. It seems most people here on ATS jump on the bandwagon of "it's just rocks" or optical illusions...

Yes it certainly could be that, but when I look at a picture of just some rocky desert, Those kinds of things never appear... Just some moon images and other places where nothing should exist or is supposed to exist, have all these things showing up in them..

The picture on the linked site is not very good resolution, but I can still see things that should not be there, like rectangular buildings with reflective top, the top of which looks totally out of place.

I'm not saying these things are there, I'm just saying it looks like they are there... I don't know if they are really there, but the funny thing about all anomalous moon or mars images, is that they have these things in them, when nothing should be there at all, not even anything that should be causing people to even post images and have a debate about it in the first place...

I am a little surprised though that most here don't see anything at all in these pictures... Or maybe they are afraid to say it and be ridiculed.. I see a lot of dishonesty and arrogance when it comes to people discussing posted images with possible anomalies in them though... Social engineering never ends...

reply to post by alienreality


I think for me personally, the reason that I don't see things in pictures like these is that I spend a lot of time going over images from the LROC, from HiRISE on Mars.......and Google Earth itself.

A lot of pictures from very high altitudes of places on Earth where water once ran, but no more, are so strikingly familiar to those that I look at from HiRISE of Mars. It's so errily familiar.

However, man made, artificial structures stand out. Even when I pan over to Egypt and take a look at ruins half buried in the sand, you can tell right away. I don't have to squint, cross my eyes, or photoshop it to see it.

That is what I'm looking for when someone posts things like this on here. Does it look like isolated ruins that I've peered at with Google Earth from very high altitudes?

Or does it look like barren landscape to me?

Now, when I look at the Mars Rocks posts on here, yes, especially when Arken posts them, I can see what it is that he's suggesting something looks at (most of the time). I do see the shape. But I also see how the rocks are lined up or piled in a way to make me see that.

Pouring over Curiosity's photos, I've found all sorts of things. Even bunnies! I'm not kidding on that one!

But then logic and reasoning takes over my surprise, normally with statements like: What the HELL is a bunny rabbit doing on Mars????

Now, if Arken, or someone else ever posts a picture of a rock and it looks like this:



Then I'm going to fall out of my seat. That's a fossilized imprint of a sea shell. Pretty common where I live here in SC. However, finding something like that on Mars, and as clear as this photo?

There'd be NO denying it then.

Originally posted by PINGi14
I contributed this never before seen image

So no one at NASA has seen this image? How did you take it then?

Is this whole thread some kind of test to prove the point that we can and do see things on other worldly surfaces that are a figment of our own imagination...we create what we want to see?...If not, then Im totally lost having read this thread, with all due respect I wonder the point of it and feel quite honestly that Ive waisted time that could be better spend doing something, anything else...

respects

reply to post by captiva


Sorry no refunds.

If you don't mind sharing your opinion. A quick A or B type poll.

Source of below image.
Apollo or LROC NAC?






files.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by PINGi14


For some reason, it doesn't look like either an Apollo or a LROC photo to me, at least at first glance.

The slight motion-like effect reminds me of some Apollo photos.

The sharpness of the tones reminds me of LROC photos.

I'm afraid it does not look like either to me.

It has nice detail, but it's been processed, strange image size, plus the nice little "A" in the bottom right hand corner of the screen.

It also looks like it has been stitched, and LROC doesn't have those lines in it's images.

If it's a zoom in of an Apollo image (most of which have the + reticules ) I'm seeing some blurring.

If I had to guess, it looks like the inside of a crater wall. But where? Moon, Mars, or Earth?

For example, if I showed you this photo:



Could you answer the same question? Apollo or LRO? Or even Curiosity on Mars?

It's actually neither, but a photo right here from Earth, cropped, desaturated, contrast/brightness adjusted with a little blur thrown in (oh and scaled). Here's a link to the web page with the original:

Barringer Crater

I'm not saying that you are faking anything, but again, now you know why I (and others) pestered you for the original photo info in your OP.

But as to your question, I'm afraid that in this photo you've shown us, it does not look like neither as you have presented it.

Awesome post. Thanks for linking that view of Barringer crater. It shows clearly many features that may not look natural to an untrained eye but is actually 100% non-artificial.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
I'm afraid it does not look like either to me.

It has nice detail, but it's been processed, strange image size, plus the nice little "A" in the bottom right hand corner of the screen.

It also looks like it has been stitched, and LROC doesn't have those lines in it's images.

If it's a zoom in of an Apollo image (most of which have the + reticules ) I'm seeing some blurring.

If I had to guess, it looks like the inside of a crater wall. But where? Moon, Mars, or Earth?

For example, if I showed you this photo:

Could you answer the same question? Apollo or LRO? Or even Curiosity on Mars?

It's actually neither, but a photo right here from Earth, cropped, desaturated, contrast/brightness adjusted with a little blur thrown in (oh and scaled). Here's a link to the web page with the original:

Barringer Crater

I'm not saying that you are faking anything, but again, now you know why I (and others) pestered you for the original photo info in your OP.

But as to your question, I'm afraid that in this photo you've shown us, it does not look like neither as you have presented it.

edit on 22-3-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2013 by eriktheawful because: Fixed link

Thanks for the inputs regarding the Apollo or LRO question. It was a LRO NAC image of fresh, unnamed crater just east of Lents Lenz C crater, rotated 90 degrees clockwise, sharpen and cropped. It has resolution of around 1m/pixel.

This particular NAC image set is in my opinion one of the more interesting sets from the dataset. There are numerous interesting looking shapes and features scattered throughout the crater wall, some covered with more regolith than others.

Picture of Earth's Barringer crater showed simple lines and polygons that could be made to look artificial to beginner's eye. So then just what should determine the criteria for genuine artificiality? Most likely some sort of context or non-randomness in the arrangement of these features will be required.

For example, a network of road like linear features connecting various non-circular shaped features? Probably non-natural. Some real tall obelisks may also work.


Coordinate: Lat 3.3, Long -100.2
LROC NAC id: M186541565LE

Zoomable Web-based View:
wms.lroc.asu.edu...

Uncompressed IMG file:
lroc.sese.asu.edu...

Compressed TIF file:
lroc.sese.asu.edu...



NAC strip footprint:

Why would a beginner's eye see something as artificial? I think it would require a very trained eye to see things on the Moon or Mars as artificial. Someone who knows geology and physical processes. Someone who perhaps has experience in examining aerial intelligence photos on Earth looking for secret military installations.

It's really not up to a lay person to conclude that something is artificial and therefore signifies an alien civilisation, unless it's really really obvious.

Originally posted by PINGi14
For example, a network of road like linear features connecting various non-circular shaped features? Probably non-natural. Some real tall obelisks may also work.

Does that mean that you see something like that on the LROC photo you posted?

Edit: at least you use original photos and post your source, thanks for that.

reply to post by wildespace



Actually, if there are things not natural on the moon, they should be quite easy to spot depending on a few things, such as size (let's face it, you're not going to see a coffee cup laying there even with the LRO's resolution, it's just too darn small), distance from it when the picture was taken (10 miles up verses say 100 miles up), and the resolution of the camera (which is dependent upon the previous 2 things, size of the object and distance from the camera).

But the real reason is because it's on the moon. There is no weathering from wind, rain, snow, sand storms, etc, etc. There is no wind blowing lunar soil around to bury anything. There is no plants to grow on it and slowly rip it apart. No moisture or atmosphere for things to slowly oxidize and rust away.

Any structures, probes or ships are most likely not going to be made out of rock. In fact, structures that might be there are most likely going to have the area cleared of lunar rock, leaving tracks (that would be quite telling).

In fact, anything there is going to be very well preserved, so long as it has not been blasted away from a meteor impact, or buried from ejecta from impacts.

Even if let us say, ET landed there to just do science, mining, testing, or even observing the Earth, and they made sure to take everything they brought with them back, we should see traces of that in the surface where things were moved, cleared, tracks, etc.

This is why I raise my eyebrow when it comes to things like "Look, it's a monolith sitting there!". Yet the area around this thing looks pristine. Why put a small rectangle there......and nothing else?

Granted, if it was something small, like a probe, even if it was the size of the Apollo LEMs, and all it did was touch down and is still there, it would be like finding a needle in a hay stack. But it's shape would be very, interesting. And it would have a very interesting looking shadow too.

So that's what I'm waiting for someone to find. But again, it could take a very long time to find, even if it's there. It may take a 2nd generation LRO that can have a 0.5 centimeter per pixel resolution before we see it.

reply to post by PINGi14


The real problem with both you and arianna is that you have your ideas of what you think looks artificial and what's natural the problem is until you have seen everything that nature can do to shape rocks you will both keep jumping to the wrong conclusions.

ALL NATURAL.

















Imagine some on here seeing this on a Mars image, Giant skull anyone



You have both imposed your limits on what you think nature can do when in reality you both don't have a clue of what nature is capable of.