What's this unusual Lunar feature, showing in Google Moon?

Page 6 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

macmauro

Guest
Hello to all, i'm pleased that this thread still alive and unresoveld, in particular a big thanks to Smersh that has done a lot ot keep it alive :) , I'm going first to try my way around the forum and how to work it (pictures, links...) but for now just leave you with one of my favorites teasers:
http://www.umlr.us/AboutUs.html
(sorry for my English it's not my first language :oops: ) just copy the link, because i don't know how to paste it, sorry..
 
S

Smersh

Guest
macmauro":3ncjfmfn said:
Hello to all, i'm pleased that this thread still alive and unresoveld, in particular a big thanks to Smersh that has done a lot ot keep it alive :) ...
Hi Macmauro, welcome to Space.com and thanks to you for finding this in Google Moon to start with. :)

I haven't heard back from Google yet btw (Or NASA.) Maybe I'll send it to USGS ...
 
M

marsandro

Guest
:cool:
Hello again silylene!

Actually, after some pondering, I finally realized where I had previously seen this weird image artifact on the moon. It looks a lot like the Alamo in San Antonio Texas from an airplane. So much so, I think someone cut and pasted a blurred image of the Alamo onto the moon as a hoax:
That sounded good, and at first glance I thought it might be so, but then I put both images into a single frame in
MS Paint and did a point-by-point comparison.

Sorry, no joy. Nice try, though.

However, in that vein, it might be a CGI construct...and it could be "based upon" the Alamo. While not strictly
the same, it *is* vaguely similar in design. Perhaps the Alamo inspired it.

But is this on the NASA website? Have they been hacked?

We need more info here....
:cool:

Hey! Maybe Obama can use this as a pretext for a Moon mission to check it out!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
You know, while the Unexplained is the Unexplained, don't expect all critical analysis to be suspended here.
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
Smersh":16rm5j1k said:
...Here are a few other views I just made (I removed the co-ordinates from some because they were obscuring the object, but the co-ordinates again are) ...

19 58 48.31 N 21 11 35.57 E

Some high altitude shots that show the surrounding terrain:

Smersh, or anyone with Google Moon,

Is it possible to get this pic from around this altitude from a top-down perspective without the coordinates slapped on top of it? I'd like to map this image and reproduce it using a displacement map in order to compare it to the isometric view generated by Google Moon. I don't have Google Moon and don't have room enough right now on my hard-drive for it. :( But, I can generate a 3D rendering of the anomaly easily. I can also generate a true 3D object of the anomaly (usable in just about any 3D viewing software) BUT it will only be generated from the information available in the photo which may or may not be accurate.

*Also - Anything that could give me a sense of scale or the final ground resolution of this pic would be extremely helpful.

I could use this pic (above) but I would be forced to alter it in order to remove the markings noting the lat/long of the area in question. Altering the source data is the first thing I'd want to avoid.

Why do this? Because, it's another way of viewing the information. If we see, for instance, a 3D representation that is radically different than what we would assume that top-down view would suggest, we may be able to say that it isn't really some kind of "structure." It's like looking at a different graphs of numbers. One graph presents them in a mundane way that doesn't really communicate much or could even be misleading. However, put the same numbers in a different type of graph and you can communicate something else entirely. All should show similar results but, one could be more significant in its impact than another.

Edit - Add-10:49pm - Just examples of what I'm talking about.





(Heightmaps exaggerated for demonstration)

See the effect the added text has? Also, notice how the pixel resolution effects the image, making blocky terrain? Some of that can be corrected but, I need a good baseline and I can't get it with the text right over the area of interest. I can crop out the other stuff but, altering the area of interest is a "bad" thing. Btw, it's not that I put any credibility on the idea it is an artificial structure. I just want to see what other representations of the area look like when artificially enhanced. It's important to note this is not a "true to life depiction of the surface" in the photo. It is simply another way to present the information already contained in the picture. It's just a different display of the exact same data.

Edit Add - A different "angle" of "view" with the terrain photo texture removed.



One thing to note - Depending on the ground resolution, it may be that what is being seen is an after-effect. Notice how it's much more detailed than the surrounding terrain? The range values are different. That doesn't mean anything conclusively. It could actually be different. But, there's a bit of variance of detail in that area that doesn't seem to be present in other areas given that this would have been shot under the same conditions. It's just a stab in the dark playing with the imagery, nothing fancy and certainly not definitive.
 
B

Beanze

Guest
kelvinzero":3tyhml9e said:
Is the odd thing how it stands out from its surroundings?

I wonder if this is the result of some sort of image processing. Here is another odd one: 20° 9'0.18"N 19°50'20.22"E .
It is just a dark black squiggle, next to an absurdly high hump, obviously an error unless those 1940s spikey moon mountains really exist :)


Have a laugh at this one, an ancient buried spacecraft!
20°52'19.03"N 19°20'56.04"E
 
A

aphh

Guest
I think they are von Neumann machines. Probably on the move constantly. This may explain why the Apollo 11 astronauts looked shocked in the press conference after returning.

They had seen giant activities going on on the moon but being under oath couldn't tell anybody about it. Also explains why Buzz got so angry when questioned about going to the moon; not only had he gone there, but he had seen all this activity going on.

This is all speculation, of course. No proof whatsoever.

If the moon is the size of Africa and there are ten or even hundred von Neumann machines roaming on the surface, they won't appear in 99,9% of the images. But they will appear in 100% of the images where they appear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY