Strange building on the moon!

[aphh]

Seeing as how you made the assertion that there are structures, it is your job to provide the evidence, especially when it's pertaining to something as outlandish as this.

Is this guy working with ks15?

I am not working with anybody and I do not attack anybody here. I advocate polite Internet discussion manners. So please refrain yourself from personal attacks.

I think I made myself perfectly clear in the reply. I do not consider what I have seen as evidence, but just something that makes myself want to look for evidence.

And where are the moon images from a ground based telescope? Are there any? We've had large telescopes for 100 years now. Certainly those astronomers must have been interested in the moon aswell.

 

[origin]

I assume this is a joke but with aphh you just never know. I took your dare, here are 160 high resolution pictures.. It is not that difficult to find 1000s of them, just google high resolution moon pictures.

That's not what I asked. I asked an image of the moon from a ground or space based telescope, not a moon orbiter. We had large telescopes before we had lunar orbiters, you know.

So where are the images from the moon from those telescopes? Link, please?

I can't believe you are serious. :lol:

Hows this?

Let me guess it is not good enough. :roll:

 

[aphh]

Okay, here is something that actually has something on the surface of the moon and doesn't look fake immediately:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPwzkMOQ ... re=related

It's a dark blob on the upper part of the illuminated portion that casts a long shadow. If you do not know what to look for, at 1:40 the visible part gets over-exposed. The blob and the shadow become visibe exactly at 1:46.

If you see nothing but a dark blob on the moon with a shadow, that's also what I see. But it's still something on the surface of the moon.

 

[drwayne]

"Big telescopes are VERY controlled items. You need to file a report in advance where you are going to point the scope."

When I was in graduate school, my office for the last several years was directly underneath the observatory dome.

Lets put it this way. I didn't always use it as an astronomical scope if you know what I mean.

Seriously though, the use of "controlled" carries an implication that is shadier than reality. Big telescope time
is a precious resource that has to be allocated among many who wish to use it. That allocation can involve an
assessment from the operator about the scientific merits of the observation program, with more "worthwhile"
observations going more to the top of the stack.

Wayne

 

[aphh]

I can't believe you are serious. :lol:

Hows this?

Let me guess it is not good enough. :roll:

You have to be kidding me.

I said 100 meter resolution, not 100 kilometer. But thanks anyway.

 

[aphh]

Seriously though, the use of "controlled" carries an implication that is shadier than reality.

But it is also true. I've seen the required procedures for a certain very large telescope. There is a lot of red tape involved. Astronomers can only submit the coordinates they wish to look at.

Of course, if you tried to apply for telescope time for a interesting feature on the moon, you would not need to apply for telescope time again. I think this is pretty controlled, don't you think?

 

[drwayne]

"Of course, if you tried to apply for telescope time for a interesting feature on the moon, you would not need to apply for telescope time again."

This does not follow. Depending on the results you got (papers published etc.) out of your previous observation,
you might not get approved for further time. There are also other factors which can move your priority up or
down for further observations.

By the way, what aperture do you expect to need for 10 meter resolution on the moon?

Wayne

 

[aphh]

By the way, what aperture to you expect to need for 10 meter resolution on the moon?

Wayne

10 meter practical resolution or 10 meter per pixel? It's going to be big. 50 meter? Both Keck's working in tandem as an interferometer?

The formula is sin Theta = 1.22 * Lamba / aperture in meters. You spesify angular resolution in radians or how many radians your field of view is going to be. One radian is ~57.3 degrees.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution

I think a lot less is needed to rule out any half a mile long or tall buildings on the moon.

 

[drwayne]

I ran the numbers after I posted - for perfect seeing with a single telescope - you check in around 23 meters
aperture.

 

[origin]

That's not what I asked. I asked an image of the moon from a ground or space based telescope, not a moon orbiter. We had large telescopes before we had lunar orbiters, you know.

Just out of morbid curiosity what is wrong with a moon orbiter - it will actually give you about the resolution you wanted?

 

[esokujo]

First off, it wasn't a personal attack, it was a reference to how your assertion was rather outlandish, nothing more.

But there are buildings on the near side of the Moon visible with a suitable telescope. The catch is, you need to know where to look, the moon has to be in just the correct phase for the shadows to appear and you need a decent scope. A formidable, albeit not impossible, challenge for the backyard astronomer.

This is the reason why there are almost no imagery of the moon from the serious large observatories. I dare you to find an image of the moon taken by some serious earth or space based telescope. Besides the moon probes, of course. You will find almost no such images.

This video is just another attempt to mix crap with the real thing, so that the real thing would become marginalized.

The quoted bit above sounds like an assertion to me, without evidence. And yes, I know you said it piqued your curiosity and the images you have seen you aren't accepting as evidence. But being curious and making an inquiry is one thing, being curious and making an assertion without proof is another.

 

[aphh]

Moon is on average 3.8 * 10^8 meters away.

At that distance 1 degree field of view would be 3.8 * 10^8 m * 2 * pi / 360 degrees ~6632 km wide. 6.632 km fow on the moon would then be 1/1000 degrees or 1.7 * 10^-5 rad.

sin 1.7 * 10^-5 rad = 1.22 * 550 * 10^-9 / Aperture in meters -> 2.26 meters.

 

[aphh]

Just out of morbid curiosity what is wrong with a moon orbiter - it will actually give you about the resolution you wanted?

Nothing wrong with a moon oribiter, but it's not what I asked and I think you know that. I'd like to know the reason why there are no high resolution images of the moon from ground based telescopes.

Before any rockets and orbiters people had large observatories with photographing abilites, so it would make sense to me that they tried to get an image of a crater on the moon.

And they did, of course. Before any orbiters were sent to moon, you can bet they imaged the moon as precisely as possible from earth.

Where are those images? That is the question. Anything else is just diversion.

 

[aphh]

First off, it wasn't a personal attack, it was a reference to how your assertion was rather outlandish, nothing more.

The quoted bit above sounds like an assertion to me, without evidence. And yes, I know you said it piqued your curiosity and the images you have seen you aren't accepting as evidence. But being curious and making an inquiry is one thing, being curious and making an assertion without proof is another.

This is the Unexplained, and we do things like that here sometimes to get the discussion running. And it worked once again.

 

[aphh]

I ran the numbers after I posted - for perfect seeing with a single telescope - you check in around 23 meters
aperture.

It is true, of course. But a ~2 meter aperture would probably tell us a lot about the near side of the moon and reveal many interesting features in detail.

I think we need a Moonscope, a dedicated instrument for mapping the nearside of the moon without Government intervention.

 

[origin]

Just out of morbid curiosity what is wrong with a moon orbiter - it will actually give you about the resolution you wanted?

Nothing wrong with a moon oribiter, but it's not what I asked and I think you know that. I'd like to know the reason why there are no high resolution images of the moon from ground based telescopes.

Before any rockets and orbiters people had large observatories with photographing abilites, so it would make sense to me that they tried to get an image of a crater on the moon.

And they did, of course. Before any orbiters were sent to moon, you can bet they imaged the moon as precisely as possible from earth.

Where are those images? That is the question. Anything else is just diversion.

The images are probably being suppressed by either our alien overlords or the world wide conspiracy to protect us from the knowledge that there are cities on the moon.

There is of course one last possibility; which is there are many different high resolution photographs of the moon (that are easy to find - even a few Hubbles!) but they don't fit your requirements because the technology for the resolution your asking for did not and still does not exist. But this explanation makes WAY too much sense.

 

[aphh]

Link to a high resolution moon image from ground telescope?

 

[origin]

Link to a high resolution moon image from ground telescope?

Well here is one from the Keck and here are a couple from the Hubble they are the bottom 2 pictures.

Of course these will not be good enough because you will change the bar. Do you know how to do a search on google?

 

[aphh]

Well here is one from the Keck and here are a couple from the Hubble they are the bottom 2 pictures.

Of course these will not be good enough because you will change the bar. Do you know how to do a search on google?

So you can point a large telescope to moon after all and it won't instantly burn or break? I'm shocked. But yes, we now have one or two images a bit like I asked.

Does this look like a complete image to you? http://keckobservatory.org/images/galle ... site_1.jpg

 

[origin]

Well here is one from the Keck and here are a couple from the Hubble they are the bottom 2 pictures.

Of course these will not be good enough because you will change the bar. Do you know how to do a search on google?

So you can point a large telescope to moon after all and it won't instantly burn or break? I'm shocked. But yes, we now have one or two images a bit like I asked.

Does this look like a complete image to you? http://keckobservatory.org/images/galle ... site_1.jpg

Bu-bye

 

[aphh]

Bu-bye

These veery limited number of samples in limited quality only demonstrate that we need a relatively large Moonscope ASAP.

 

[JonClarke]

Nobody is going to waste time taking pictures of the Moon through a large telescope when far better images are available from space probes.

However if people want to see photographic atlases of the Moon taken using telescopes they should go to one of those places called a library and look through the many books that were published on the Moon before the space age.

 

[abq_farside]

Link please

You need to do some digging. I've seen some amateur footage that clearly show shadows sticking out that do not seem to follow natural shapes. However, as those images do not report accurate coordinates and the moon phase, I have not used them as evidence of anything, just picked my interest and definitely would be enough for a closer look.

If I had access to clear skies (which I don't), I'd get a scope and follow the dividing line of the night and day on the moon cloesly to see whatkind of shapes I could resolve. Perhaps one day I will do that.

In other words you do not have a link to back up your claims.

OK :roll:

edit: word-o

 

[silylene]

You need to do some digging. I've seen some amateur footage that clearly show shadows sticking out that do not seem to follow natural shapes. However, as those images do not report accurate coordinates and the moon phase, I have not used them as evidence of anything, just picked my interest and definitely would be enough for a closer look.

If I had access to clear skies (which I don't), I'd get a scope and follow the dividing line of the night and day on the moon cloesly to see whatkind of shapes I could resolve. Perhaps one day I will do that.

aphh, have you considered collaborating with ks15? He is very good at indentifying unexpected angular shadows in photos that he thinks have unnatural shapes.

 

[origin]

I am curious why the OP says this is a strange building on the moon. It looks like a normal building to me...