Moon anomalies

[oldHooker]

... or, maybe they don't, but if there is a reasonable explanation I'd sure like to hear it!

Each of these can be located on Google Earth5 "Moon" by following the coordinates in each image.

Take care,

Frank

Edited July 11, 2010 by oldHooker

[toadwbg]

First time I ever heard of these. With modern imaging software (Photoshop) It's hard to believe in anything found on the Internet.

[grandadjohn]

Maybe that's where the "Monolith" is

[Tony Stark]

That's Norin Radd's idea of a joke. You didn't know the Silver Surfer was a vandal? You've seen his signature on Mars...

He thinks he's the intergalactic Banksy.

[Fishwelding]

I'm confused about the first image. It looks like there were two camera anomalies, but in two different places. So I'm not sure why the assumption that something was censored. Indeed, if someone was trying to hide something, they would retouch it so as to suggestion nothing at all there of any significance. The other images do not appear significant to me. To the extent that anything is symmetrical, nature is full of symmetry, formed and existing amidst chaos. Further, I'm not certain if I'm looking at something on the surface, or something drifting past the camera lens at much closer range.

Although...the third image does look a bit like Ignignokt.

Maybe that's where the "Monolith" is

I think we have to dig, first.

By the way, that Testors Lacquer black sold in their automotive paints is totally the right black for painting a monolith. I primed a fighter plane with in a while back, but I thought "Wow, that is precisely the right level of gloss for a monolith." No, I'm not suggesting an 1/48th F-86D is some ancient alien artifact, though.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Fishwelding

[Trigger]

Agreed. If I'm going to retouch an image to hide something, I'm not going to do something that will call attention to it.

Although...the third image does look a bit like Ignignokt.

I'll bet it's those same guys who posted the "devices" in Boston.

By the way, that Testors Lacquer black sold in their automotive paints is totally the right black for painting a monolith. I primed a fighter plane with in a while back, but I thought "Wow, that is precisely the right level of gloss for a monolith." No, I'm not suggesting an 1/48th F-86D is some ancient alien artifact, though.

A Gloss Black F-86D? Pix or it didn't happen.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Trigger

[oldHooker]

Hey guys,

I'm not making any presumptions on any of the images, just showing what's on Google Earth 5 "Moon", and seeing what kind of explanations there might be.

Edited July 11, 2010 by oldHooker

[Fishwelding]

Agreed. If I'm going to retouch an image to hide something, I'm not going to do something that will call attention to it.

Exactly!

A Gloss Black F-86D? Pix or it didn't happen.

Honestly, it looked so hot for a brief second I thought about a What-If build of some kind. But it was just primer for the metal finish afterwards. Which looked OK, but I put on too much lacquer glosscoat afterward to seal the decals, which didn't do the final finish much good. It's behind me on the shelf, now, and someday maybe I'll puts some pics up, but as it's one of the kit decal schemes, it's not that profound a build.

Incidently, I like those lacquers for a variety of items. I mix their gloss black and "header flat white" together to make a variety of decent grays that go on really good and are easy to gloss up a bit further for decals.

But we just hijacked the thread with our talk about models. Sorry, everyone.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Fishwelding

[Trigger]

seeing what kind of explanations there might be.

I've noticed some digital artifacts on some of those screenshots which point to either the camera or it's imaging software as the culprit. Also, the transmission signal from the satellite to the receiver back here likely suffered from some degradation with the software attempting to "correct" the flaws.

[GreyGhost]

Interesting stuff all the same, Thanks Frank ...

Maybe that's where the "Monolith" is

I think you mean 'Moonolith' ...

Gregg

[Eastern]

Hi! Try this: http://www.weirdvideos.com/leonard1.html

Alexander.

[Bonehammer73]

IMHO they're just artifacts, from the digitalization/pixelation of the images or other reasons. The photo in post #7 has those little rectangles at the bottom of craters, but there are also lines parallel to those rectangles running across the image. I guess the 'rectangles' were created where there was a sharp difference in values between adjacent pixels (light/shadow in the craters).

Regard the two pictures compared, the one made in the '60s looks like someone applied the 'Reticle Distortion' tool: something on the lens or the film caused a part of the image to warp. With this in mind, my educated guess is that the structure is the crater marked with the green spot. I have numbered the nearby landmarks for reference.

I can't make anything out of the second and third pictures. In the case of the former, I think that pixelation made order appear from disorder...

EDIT: Don't forget sometimes the artifact is formed downstream of the retinas. This is what Leeuwehoek thought he had seen in his microscope:

This is what can be seen three hundred years later with better optics and dyes:

Not to mention the Trope Namer... the infamous Mars channels:

Edited July 11, 2010 by Bonehammer73

[roym]

Could the third pic be the remains of an Lunar Module wreckage? they did fall back down after jettisioning, didn't they?

[Jennings]

A Gloss Black F-86D? Pix or it didn't happen.

I have three shots of it (all well lit, on original Kodachromes) parked next to the camouflaged B-58

But I can't release them...

J

[Mumbles]

Just going to put my formal scientific investigation hat on here (since it's one of the disciplines I formally trained in) and state that unless you are working with the original, unretouched or altered source data, your conclusions are going to be open to flaws. One of the issues with interpreting images sourced on the web is that the very nature of posting them alters them in some way, through either being cropped, scanned, resized, or compressed or copied, any of which can or will reduce the quality and amount of information available for interpretation. One of the first principles of an objective research effort is to go to as close to the source data as you can.

Looking at these I've got three questions:

Are these the original unaltered raw source images (unaltered beyond necessary processing to produce the visible image)?

Are these anomalies present in the original images?

Can the anomalies be explained by the technology used to produce the images, or an existing condition at the time the image was made?

I'm betting on the answer to the third being yes (while allowing for the low possibility of it being 'no'). I might be wrong in that, but since that has been the case for every single other photographic 'anomaly' used to suggest some sort of Moon related conspiracy I would be surprised.

Just for the sake of transparency, I'll admit to being a skeptical debunker of Moon hoax/conspiracy theories, since the evidence presented in support of them doesn't survive 'first principles' examination when I've looked into it.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Mumbles

[Fishwelding]

Just going to put my formal scientific investigation hat on here (since it's one of the disciplines I formally trained in) and state that unless you are working with the original, unretouched or altered source data, your conclusions are going to be open to flaws. One of the issues with interpreting images sourced on the web is that the very nature of posting them alters them in some way, through either being cropped, scanned, resized, or compressed or copied, any of which can or will reduce the quality and amount of information available for interpretation. One of the first principles of an objective research effort is to go to as close to the source data as you can.

Looking at these I've got three questions:

Are these the original unaltered raw source images (unaltered beyond necessary processing to produce the visible image)?

Are these anomalies present in the original images?

Can the anomalies be explained by the technology used to produce the images, or an existing condition at the time the image was made?

I'm betting on the answer to the third being yes (while allowing for the low possibility of it being 'no'). I might be wrong in that, but since that has been the case for every single other photographic 'anomaly' used to suggest some sort of Moon related conspiracy I would be surprised.

Just for the sake of transparency, I'll admit to being a skeptical debunker of Moon hoax/conspiracy theories, since the evidence presented in support of them doesn't survive 'first principles' examination when I've looked into it.

Historical photos are a bear that way. For postcard shots, towns back around World War I would occasionally remove streetcar overhead because they thought it cluttered up their street photo. Publicity photos were very often retouched for technology. Sometimes it's blatantly obvious, and other times it's more subtle; the windows on that truck don't look quite natural, etc. Indeed, I'm increasingly convinced that armor modelers and possibly model companies may base some of their impressions of the Wehrmacht and SS on photos and films which were at least partially orchestrated, or if not have at least survived, because they were used for propaganda purposes. If they're not wrong, they just don't tell the whole story. Like the millions of horses that the German Army employed, for example.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Fishwelding

[oldHooker]

Looking at these I've got three questions:

Are these the original unaltered raw source images (unaltered beyond necessary processing to produce the visible image)?

Are these anomalies present in the original images?

Can the anomalies be explained by the technology used to produce the images, or an existing condition at the time the image was made?

The images presented are screencaps from Google Earth 5 "Moon".

The images have not been altered by myself in any way before posting them here.

Since I am not aware of the technology used to produce the images available on Google Earth, the answer to the third question is unknown. The images shown are accessable to anyone using said program.

Edited July 12, 2010 by oldHooker

[oldHooker]

Could the third pic be the remains of an Lunar Module wreckage? they did fall back down after jettisioning, didn't they?

Hi Roy,

The anomaly in the third picture, according to the programs' "ruler", is 240.03 meters wide, so I doubt it's one of the lunar modules. I have no clue what it is... pixelation definately distorts the image, but whatever it is certainly is in stark contrast to the surrounding landscape.

Take care and thanks,<_<

Frank

Edited July 12, 2010 by oldHooker

[Isaac]

Richard Hoagland (hoaxland), is that you?

[MiG31]

The images presented are screencaps from Google Earth 5 "Moon".

The images have not been altered by myself in any way before posting them here.

While you didn't play with the images yourself, that does not mean that they were not distorted by the program. I suspect that what you're looking at is the effect of laying 2D imagery on a 3D object (the Google Moon, in this case). I've seen similar distortions in Earth aerial/satellite imagery in the same program, so I don't think it is something nefarious. I'd like to learn more about what's causing the distortive effects, as well.

By the way, in your first image + text, did you write the text, or did that come from another site?

[pigsty]

The supposed face on Mars turned out not to be even remotely face-like once they'd got a better camera up there. See here. The same applies here: you're looking only at what the camera can show you. If the camera is having hiccups at the same time, it's best not rely on it at all.

[zerosystem]

Agreed. If I'm going to retouch an image to hide something, I'm not going to do something that will call attention to it.

I'll bet it's those same guys who posted the "devices" in Boston.

A Gloss Black F-86D? Pix or it didn't happen.

thanks for reminding me i went to college with one of those loosers <_<

ps yes, the guy smelled as bad as he looked

[oldHooker]

By the way, in your first image + text, did you write the text, or did that come from another site?

My cousin put the photo together with text and emailed it to me, which is what prompted me to go to Google Moon and see for myself because I'd never heard of such, outside of the sci fi channel.

In the area where the second photo was captured for instance (perfectly spaced series of dots forming a right angle), there are literally hundreds of distortions that could be pointed to as something hypernatural. It's almost as if whomever engineered these mosaics also included "alterations" for star gazers to get hung up on! LOL

Thanks,

Frank

[MiG31]

In the area where the second photo was captured for instance (perfectly spaced series of dots forming a right angle), there are literally hundreds of distortions that could be pointed to as something hypernatural. It's almost as if whomever engineered these mosaics also included "alterations" for star gazers to get hung up on!

Or it's artifacting caused by Google Earth, as I suggested. Nothing supernatural about it.

[Guest PNW_Modeler]

Those are the finger marks left over after Gru shrunk it