Alien Anomalies

maleficence · Member

RE: MOON: A very high tower or an unusual land formation?

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

The constructions on Mars and Venus are beyond our limited size concepts constrained by our ordinary everyday life.

The word gigantic is not enough to describe what people in those planets, as well as on our moon have built .

-- Frutty

OBrien · Member

As I said previously, whether you think its size is an argument in favor of or against it being an artificial structure is up to you. But being knowledgeable about its size is better than not considering it in a discussion.

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

OBrien, Thank you for your reply.

Therefore, if Fischer, with a known diameter of 30km, is used as a calibration dimension to make a rough calculation, the field of view (width of the image) has to be approximately 160km (450 pixels). This would make the dimensions of the tower anomaly a huge structure. There again, this could be possible as astronauts and other planetary researchers have made suggestions that there are some very tall objects to be seen rising from the lunar surface.

OBrien · Member

Timewarp wrote:

OBrien said that one side of the base of the anomaly would be equivalent to four Empire State buildings placed end-to-end. I am wondering how this calculation was made as no information is provided relating the scaled width of the image in relation to how wide the image is in pixels (450).

Please note that the image presented at the beginning of this thread is 900 pixels wide.

This is one of the major problems with many of the images. How to determine a scale to work by in order to produce more accurate results of a visual analysis.

This is the reference information provided with the image.

Lens Focal length   3 inch
Camera tilt              VERT
Camera altitude     106 km
Sun elevation         5 degrees
Film type                 3400
Film width               5 inch
Image width           4.5 inch

Is there enough information given here to determine the actual width per pixel knowing that the original low resolution image shown in this thread is 450 pixels wide?

Yes there is enough information to derive the scale factor. It is a simple calculation.

However, there is a method which does not rely on knowing how to do that calculation.

The crater on the right side of each image is Fischer Crater. (In the right image Fischer is seen to have an additional internal crater.) It is 30 km in diameter. The measurements of the "tower" were scaled from that information.

Picture 23.png

The calculation from the image parameters confirms this.

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

We dont have pixels, so how can we count them? You need clear uncompressed data. We just do not have that ever(almost), and even if we did, I believe that it would be too much trouble in rover images where things are larger/closer.

The example picture of the alledged little people in the dirt in the thread I posted ("This is what it SHOULD look like") showed un-compressed pixels so fine that you would spend ages enlarging the picture and measuring the pixels. I suppose it could be done though.

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

gbull, The question of scaling is a very important feature when trying to determine the dimensions of a particular object, anomaly or artifact.

If the measurement per pixel is not known, an object without a scale to go by that appears to be 1 meter long could well be 50 cm long or even 100 meter long. We just do not know.

Unfortunately, we are researching 'in the dark' until a scale is formulated for a given image that will also provide a rough benchmark for calculating the dimensions of objects in that particular image and the images contained within the same series of images if the same parameters apply.

gbull · Veteran Member

flat!

GIVE IT UP!

comon guys.

ICEMAN · Senior Member

Timewarp wrote: Is there enough information given here to determine the actual width per pixel knowing that the original low resolution image shown in this thread is 450 pixels wide?

Good question Timewarp, either we need to know how many pixels are in one meter or the camera angle to be able to calculate the distance base on camera altitude and the camera angle to the center of the image, then we have the possibility to understand the real dimensions.

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

OBrien said that one side of the base of the anomaly would be equivalent to four Empire State buildings placed end-to-end. I am wondering how this calculation was made as no information is provided relating the scaled width of the image in relation to how wide the image is in pixels (450).

Please note that the image presented at the beginning of this thread is 900 pixels wide.

This is one of the major problems with many of the images. How to determine a scale to work by in order to produce more accurate results of a visual analysis.

This is the reference information provided with the image.

Lens Focal length   3 inch
Camera tilt              VERT
Camera altitude     106 km
Sun elevation         5 degrees
Film type                 3400
Film width               5 inch
Image width           4.5 inch

Is there enough information given here to determine the actual width per pixel knowing that the original low resolution image shown in this thread is 450 pixels wide?

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

Ok, so now I know what the PP is. Thanks for your explanation.
I assume the h1,h2,h3 images have a specified size on the ground.

What I was trying to do, was to find other pictures of the same area.

I went to the map (that I gave a link to above) and looked for the Lat/Long to try and find one.
Normally East is to the right when looking at a map on Earth, but in case I was wrong, I got both links pointed to by the map.

So I guess I just have to search for pictures with a nearby Principal Point and then visually recognise the crater from surrounding features, do I? Of course, if I know the craters name, I can do a search on that or a nearby one too.

OBrien · Member

Since it hasn't been mentioned before, here is information about the size of the "tower".

Picture 26.png

Whether you think this is an argument in favor of or against it being an artificial structure is up to you.

ICEMAN · Senior Member

I'm not here to defined how the latitude and logitude is used and why this system is so reliable as it is. Hawe NASA ever come up with some facts which have stood the test of time. NASA will do anything possible to confuse people.

OBrien · Member

qmantoo wrote:
Just as a matter of interest - is there a direct 1:2 relationship between sun angle and number of diameters of the sun above the horizon?

Of course. The angular diameter of the sun (at Earth/Moon distance) is about 1/2 degree. Therefore 1 degree = 2 sun diameters, 2 degrees = 4 sun diameters, etc., x degrees = 2x sun diameters.

qmantoo wrote:
I am taking the Principal Point which as I undrstand it is the point immediately under the satellite perpedicular to the surface.

No, that's incorrect. The principal point has a specific technical definition that is more complex than is appropriate here, but is essentially the latitude and logitude of the point at the center of the image.

qmantoo wrote:
the details here of Latitude / Longitude: 9.1° N / 145.3° E
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS16-M-2073

do not agree with the details here
(dont know which of these I should be looking at...according to the map)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/frame/?5085
Principal Point:
Latitude: 38.73°
Longitude: 158.84°

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/frame/?5030
Principal Point:
Latitude: -25.79°
Longitude: -139.29°

Can anyone make head or tail of it please?

Each of the iunar orbiter images looks at an enormous range of latitudes and longitudes. The principal points you quote are only valid for the location at the center of the image. If you're looking at other areas, the latitude and longitude can be vastly different.

For instance, in image 5030, the crescent of the moon visible goes almost from the North Pole to the South Pole. Any individual place you look might have a latitude from 80 deg N to 80 deg S, but doesn't change the parameters of the image.

Is Fischer supposed to be visible in each of those images?

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

However, having examined that picture, I would say that there are a lot of other things in it, underneath a load of very fine speckles which seems to overlay the whole thing - particularly the blacked out portions. I dont think we can really say "there is no shadow" because there are too many shadows in this picture both natural ones and un-natural ones. I think this picture is a lost cause and we probably wont find much in it that we can clearly identify.

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

Just as a matter of interest - is there a direct 1:2 relationship between sun angle and number of diameters of the sun above the horizon?
At 5 degrees the sun is 10 sun diameters above the horizon

The other thing I was going to ask, if anyone knows the answer please?
The Latitude and Longitude are different for The Lunar orbiter pictures and the Apollo pictures.
I am taking the Principal Point which as I undrstand it is the point immediately under the satellite perpedicular to the surface.

the details here of Latitude / Longitude: 9.1° N / 145.3° E
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS16-M-2073

do not agree with the details here
(dont know which of these I should be looking at...according to the map)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/frame/?5085
Principal Point:
Latitude: 38.73°
Longitude: 158.84°

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/frame/?5030
Principal Point:
Latitude: -25.79°
Longitude: -139.29°

Can anyone make head or tail of it please?

OBrien · Member

Here is a comparison at a different sun elevation of the entire area. The large crater is named Mendeleev, the large crater in the upper right near the "tower" is named "Fischer."

Picture 23.png

And here are closeups of the area.

Picture 24.png

The "tower" is an illusion caused by shadows at a single time of day. Nothing more.

My patience is exhausted on this non-issue.

OBrien · Member

Software_Pyrate wrote:
NONE of the shadows depict a 5 degree angle....Not one...5 degree's isn't even enough for the sun to be fully visible past the horizon.

That's demonstrably incorrect. At 5 degrees the sun is 10 sun diameters above the horizon

Software_Pyrate wrote:
If its like you say, then all the shadows should be 10X longer not just the "tower".

I claim they are. Almost all the shallow craters are completely shadowed. That only happens when the sun is very, very low in elevation.

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

Maybe this map will allow us to find another picture of the same area

also other lunar links
Map a Planet
Lunar Orbiter Digitisation Project

Chandre · Dedicated to the truth

SP, I agree with you. I also see a tall structure to the right of the anomaly that has the partial shadow of the anomaly on it as well as a full shadow on the back side of the actual anomaly which would not be there if it was not elevated....

Software_Pyrate · Veteran Member

Well.....I can agree to disagree on this one.

NONE of the shadows depict a 5 degree angle....Not one...5 degree's isn't even enough for the sun to be fully visible past the horizon. If its like you say, then all the shadows should be 10X longer not just the "tower".
______________________________________________________________________________

The entire area is elevated to the right of the "tower"

I'm not one to make faces out of random patterns...but this clearly looks like a tower to me
_____________________________________________________________________________

I clearly see the shadow being distorted by the adjacent formations.

So...the consensus here is that it is not actually as tall as it appears...that it is an illusion....would that be correct?

If so.

Strongly disagree.

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

I have to agree with OBrien I am afraid. However much we 'want' to see things we cannot lose sight of reality.

Maybe we can find another pictiure showing this area from another time - which will give us another angle of sunlight and satellite. This often resolves the issue (I am afraid it often resolves it not in our favour!).

So.. instread of arguing the point on one picture, go find other images which prove your point. Else, it is just a waste of time.

iLLUMiNATiON · Member

OBrien wrote:

Software_Pyrate

Sorry, but your analysis has no merit. Look at the full frame image (the first one in this thread). The illumination source is coming from almost directly left. Maybe a few degrees clockwise, but absolutely not the direction you have shown in your diagram. You are being deceived by the rough terrain in the local area. Or look at the original at

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS16-M-2073

which is rotated by 90 degrees. Do you not agree that the light in that image is coming directly from top to bottom?

By the way, what is 58% in your diagram?

Second, the claim the adjacent structure is hiding the shadow? This is supposed to be a tall tower, with the sun 5 degrees above the horizon. The shadow should be in length over 10 times the height of the tower. It could only be hidden if the adjacent structure was close to that height. So where is THAT structure's shadow?

"What are you saying by saying" Where is its shadow".....? Are you saying tampering is going on here" -- Of course not. There's no shadow that is consistant with a tall vertical structure in that location.

I agree 150%, software_pyrate you have been giving fruit a ton of debates lately but this is not debatable and you are incorrect. Have you actually looked at the image? Fruit would not waste our time like that.... the debate is the waste of time.

OBrien · Member

Software_Pyrate

Sorry, but your analysis has no merit. Look at the full frame image (the first one in this thread). The illumination source is coming from almost directly left. Maybe a few degrees clockwise, but absolutely not the direction you have shown in your diagram. You are being deceived by the rough terrain in the local area. Or look at the original at

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS16-M-2073

which is rotated by 90 degrees. Do you not agree that the light in that image is coming directly from top to bottom?

By the way, what is 58% in your diagram?

Second, the claim the adjacent structure is hiding the shadow? This is supposed to be a tall tower, with the sun 5 degrees above the horizon. The shadow should be in length over 10 times the height of the tower. It could only be hidden if the adjacent structure was close to that height. So where is THAT structure's shadow?

"What are you saying by saying" Where is its shadow".....? Are you saying tampering is going on here" -- Of course not. There's no shadow that is consistant with a tall vertical structure in that location.

Software_Pyrate · Veteran Member

Obrian....I have a few issues with that presentation.

For one....There IS a shadow. However, there is land mass directly to the right of it, fairly high infact, which will make the shadow appear smaller than what it really is, whereas, the crator exsamples are casting on "flat" ground which makes the shadows longer.

Also...there is a rock formation that is Hiding the full view of the shadow....as illustrated.

What are you saying by saying" Where is its shadow".....? Are you saying tampering is going on here?
_________________________________________________________________

First, point of light source in your illustration is wrong for illustration purposes. Here is a more clear perception.

Second, The shadow is being covered up by a structure or rock formation... as outlined......

Third, The shadow is clearly being distorted due to the hill and rock formations...in the below image, the two lines represent the shadows natural lye.....

_____________________________________________________________

So....to answer your question...THERE IS THE SHADOW.

I'm not saying this is an artificial structure ( although it clearly looks like it) because it has not been proven one way or another.....just merely stating that...It does in fact have a shadow and is being cast....

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

For reference purposes, the location of the view is 9.1N / 145.3E. The camera to surface distance was 106km and the elevation of the Sun was 5 degrees.

I am convinced that a lot of what we are viewing in this image is artificial. With reference to the 'tower' shape my brain is prepared to accept that the anomaly could be a high structure whilst on the other hand it could be a part of the terrain. I cannot agree with OBrien on the subject of the shadows and feel that the majority of the large black zones are possibly areas of water. The whole landscape is draped with an artificiality that requires further investigation and research.

If the image is closely examined, it can be seen that a 'presence' has been at work on the surface. There are many anthropomorphic and zoomorphic shapes in the terrain which would indicate that there was, or still is, a 'presence' on the Moon.

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

Yes, I too think that there are no towers here because I do not see any shadows. Normally, there would be, particularly at this enlargement. The shadows I do see, only suggest ground features. Just my opinion of course. I think there are probably better examples of towers.

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Forshadowing fears? Hmmm you know I already saw behind the montage and are ruling me out in advance? You are funny!

-- Edited by Chandre on Wednesday 28th of July 2010 06:36:54 AM

OBrien · Member

Timewarp wrote:

Are you 100% sure we are seeing shadows or something else that gives the appearace of being shadows?

Yes I am. For anyone to suggest otherwise would require a massive amount of evidence, and not just another threshold image and a confident assertion.

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

Are you 100% sure we are seeing shadows or something else that gives the appearace of being shadows?

OBrien · Member

Humanoid got to it before me ...

Picture 20.png

Humanoid · Veteran Member

It sure looks kind of like the Empire State Building to me too...except:

1. Wrong perspective- this is a straight down view and the tower should be seen as from above at a smaller angle (unless it's leaning to one side)

2. Shadow is missing? The sun is very low on the horizon so we should see a long shadow to the right of the tower?

Sorry, I see nothing but a ground feature here..

Software_Pyrate · Veteran Member

Man.....that sure looks like a tower to me......

Of course...irregular formations have not been ruled out.....But i'm still leaning on the tower side of things...It just looks so artificial...of course IMHO

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

ICEMAN wrote:

Great work. Here is metaphor from the planet earth.

Better yet,

TW Towers.jpg

-- Frutty

ICEMAN · Senior Member

Great work. Here is metaphor from the planet earth.

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Humanoid wrote:

Timewarp, I failed to notice the tall structure in any of the circled areas?

Hope this helps,

TW Towers.jpg

Frutty

Humanoid · Veteran Member

Timewarp, I failed to notice the tall structure in any of the circled areas? confuse

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

Looking through the images of the Apollo 16 mission I came across something that had the appearance of a very tall built structure. The image has been rotated left 90 degrees todisplay it better. The anomaly and two other items of interest are circled.

A high resolution image is available.

Have a look and see what you think it is.

Reference page:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/metric/mission/?16

Image ref:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS16-M-2073