Mons Hansteen monolith casts >100m shadow on the Moon

reply to post by jeep3r


The enhancement procedure I use brings out detail that cannot normally be seen in the original. It also improves the 'edge definition' therefore the views become clearer to observe the smaller surface features.

I have downloaded the LROC image (M140237118RC) and after cleaning and darkening the image by a considerable degree have found that the features the arrows are pointing to in the animation can just about be made out in the original, but not clear enough to be easily recognizable as to what the objects could possibly be. The original downloded image is too bright to easily recognize the geometrical shapes and smaller features but after making adjustments and enhancing the image the smaller objects become much more easy to recognize. I can safely say that the enhance procedure has helped to prove that there are structures on the lunar surface, thousands of them, if not millions, but how they came to be there would be an ideal topic for another thread.

If required, I can produce the original image with some arrows pointing to the object detail as seen in the animations.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
So there are rocks at the dead center of the "IMPERFECT Arrowhead" discuss

Sure, let's discuss. Do you think that you can do that without being a _______?

Let's discuss the SCALE of the monolithic rocks. Here I took a screen shot from a well respected Apollo Nut GoneToPlaid who admitted to digital image manipulations, deconvolved bits, bits removed, etc.

And this is his Apollo 11 descent stage shadow in comparison with my monolithic rock shadow. For Illustration Only And I did not deconvolve or remove any bits, I only stretched the shadow in M166182355RC to fit 120m, according to the scale provided by GoneToPlaid.

Discuss.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by wmd_2008
So there are rocks at the dead center of the "IMPERFECT Arrowhead" discuss

Sure, let's discuss. Do you think that you can do that without being a _______?

Let's discuss the SCALE of the monolithic rocks. Here I took a screen shot from a well respected Apollo Nut GoneToPlaid who admitted to digital image manipulations, deconvolved bits, bits removed, etc.

And this is his Apollo 11 descent stage shadow in comparison with my monolithic rock shadow. For Illustration Only And I did not deconvolve or remove any bits, I only stretched the shadow in M166182355RC to fit 120m, according to the scale provided by GoneToPlaid.

Discuss.

edit on 7/11/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: edit

I am not being a _______? when people make stupid claims of PRECISE & ARROWHEAD they have to back it up , as for your Apollo 11 picture exactly what do you think that proves after all the lander base is only a few feet high yet due to it's position and the sun it cast a very long shadow compared to it's height so guess what that means the ROCK doesn't have to be very high to produce a long shadow so thanks for that

reply to post by wmd_2008

when people make stupid claims of PRECISE & ARROWHEAD they have to back it up , as for your Apollo 11 picture exactly what do you think that proves after all the lander base is only a few feet high yet due to it's position and the sun it cast a very long shadow compared to it's height so guess what that means the ROCK doesn't have to be very high to produce a long shadow so thanks for that

The rocks are precisely located... and this goes to the limits of our knowledge of physics and geology. Right?
The "Arrowhead" is a term used by stargazers for a long time. Apparently, you have not been studying the moon for a long time, otherwise, you would know why I was using the term.

I am not being a _______?

Yes, you most certainly are.

Another illustrated tour of the area on Mons Hansteen with some of the interesting features noted. All the inset images are just screenshots from the quick map browser, target.lroc.asu.edu... , nothing special done with these images.

What do you mean when you say "precisely"? I could point to a boulder somewhere on Earth and say that it is precisely located, but that wouldn't mean anything. Things are where nature left them. Unless you can prove that this object was created or placed there by artificial means, there's nothing precise about it.

As for your latest picture of mysterious sites, have you examined them in other NAC strips (at different sun angles)? I examined the "The House" and it's nothing more than a play of shadows. The "pipe" is clearly an image artifact. The "trailer rock" does look interesting.

It's not the best but here is a collection of 3 different approaches to the same site.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

when people make stupid claims of PRECISE & ARROWHEAD they have to back it up , as for your Apollo 11 picture exactly what do you think that proves after all the lander base is only a few feet high yet due to it's position and the sun it cast a very long shadow compared to it's height so guess what that means the ROCK doesn't have to be very high to produce a long shadow so thanks for that

The rocks are precisely located... and this goes to the limits of our knowledge of physics and geology. Right?
The "Arrowhead" is a term used by stargazers for a long time. Apparently, you have not been studying the moon for a long time, otherwise, you would know why I was using the term.

I am not being a _______?

Yes, you most certainly are.

How are the rocks precisely located?

Yes it's called arrowhead because it RESEMBLES an arrowhead that doesn't mean its a PRECISE copy of one which means the rocks are not at a precise location!!!

Like lots of other pictures we have see on here on Moon & Mars threads objects can look like something until seen in detail (Mars face for example) same with the arrowhead.

Originally posted by VoidFire
It would make sense if it was a volcanic vent that had the outer part of the Volcano eroded away. That's where some similar structures originate from here on Earth as well, from eroded away volcanoes leaving only the Volcanic plug. I'm just saying because there are many wind storms on Mars, and the erosion and weathering may have also come from previous water sources as well.

Very beautiful and interesting geologic phenomena too.

There is no atmosphere on the moon so there is no erosion.

Originally posted by badgerprints
There is no atmosphere on the moon so there is no erosion.

There is erosion on the Moon, but not as we know it. The (extremely slow) erosion on the Moon is caused by micro-meteorite impacts, solar wind, moonquakes, temperature difference between night and day, and perhaps some other more obscure factors. blog.moonzoo.org...

You can recognise an old crater versus a new crater by how eroded its edges are.

reply to post by wildespace


I agree with erosion theory. It must be some kind of gaseous explosive vent. If it was a lava vent it would appear as a flow, thick or thin. These big chunks of white rocks were expelled, by force, from below.

Seismic activity in the precise location of the "vent" would encourage some nearby slopes to sympathetically cascade the loose gatherings of gravelly material into lower troughs adjacent to the volcanic "vents" according to the origins theory of Mons Hansteen.

But how did Mons Hansteen make this one? Gaseous vent caving in?