Forums

Posted: 07-11-2009 09:53 Post subject:

Hello. Thanks for the reference to the post at my What's All This, Then? blog. The images there are crops from the cited 1.1MB image from Apollo Archive which is linked in the post. They have all the large ones. I've not yet found any tiff or jp2 files at all from Apollo, though, which are preferable, of course. Sigh. Only the mildest of enhancement was used for the closeups.

I feel that these objects are artifacts. The slab is of uniform thickness, has nicely radiused corners and a squarish bar underneath. If you look closely, there is also a circular bit in conjunction with said bar. The cylinder seems to have gear teeth, as do a couple of smaller objects in front of it. There's also a flared cylindrical object in the background that I didn't feature.

As I noted, the astronauts seemed rather interested in this little pile of "rocks," judging by the number of photos they took of it. This image is just the "nicest."

I just don't feel that this combination of features can be explained by "erosion," which, on the moon, we are told, is exclusively the result of micrometeoritic impingement.

So, indeed, my tone was not sceptical, nor will it be. Not to say that I'm swayed by all the awful blurry dreams of many wide-eyed netizens. I am especially annoyed with all the sites that use the very low-res Clementine imagery to make whole sites out of, when the hi-res data is available to all. It's quite depressing. This image, however, and all the other Apollo images, even though they're jpgs, thanks to Misters Hasselblad, Zeiss and Eastman... are pretty darn sporty.

NASA is a strange outfit. They're obviously not hiding this imagery, but I've seen that they do sometimes hide things. Same with Mars, my other specialty. Besides the obsession with presenting red where no red's present, they have an odd tendency to carefully avoid investigating the things that I and a lot of others find interesting.

As some have intimated above, I don't think we'll really know until we ourselves can have a peek... either personally... or by independent missions. Sadly, both are unlikely.

Peace.

Posted: 07-11-2009 10:18 Post subject:

Iggymak, welcome aboard dude ! Very Happy

Posted: 07-11-2009 14:35 Post subject:

Hmm, when I read the post without looking at the pictures I was very sceptical. Your usual explanations. However looking at the better picture, I could explain away a couple of things as naturally formed stone but put all of those together and the the sum becomes bigger than the whole.
Funnily enough, it looks as if a jet has nosedived with the stabilising tail sticking out. Of course even writing this makes me feel stupid. Why though?
It seems that people get the feeling it is not "intelligent" enough to notice unusual things.
I mean I will always look at the most plausible explanation first, which would be: rocks, weirdly shaped rocks.
But the fact that NASA photographed these so many times, makes me wonder if they did look peculiar to those that decided to take the pictures.
So something is definitively different from everything else around.
What it is we don't know yet.

Posted: 07-11-2009 16:49 Post subject:

"Usual" explanations? Mad

There's more in that pic : to the right there's a 'rock' sticking out of the sand with 3 cubic protrusions on top, all leaning at the same angle as if part of it - which doesn't seem like natural geology.To the left of that are some more cubic 'rocks' lying on the surface. there's something circular just visible throught he sand in the middle of the pic. Just right of the 39 is a disc with holes in it and something very artificial looking just below it.
Between the second reticle cross up from the 39 and the third one there are two parallel lines of 'stones' with a larger disc shaped thing with a square hole in it at the upper end of the left-hand line. A couple more straight rows of stones just below the cylinder, pointing towards it.

Actually they would probably have taken a lot of photos of it anyway: they wanted to make up panoramic composites, so would take a pic, move a few feet, take another and so on.

Posted: 07-11-2009 18:27 Post subject:

Thanks, Bigfoot73! Very glad to be here =)

Posted: 07-11-2009 19:12 Post subject:

Posted: 07-11-2009 21:13 Post subject:

Dingo, my apologies ! Embarassed

No, you worded your sentiments just fine, it's just that I've got a bit defensive after so many ordeals at the hands of the sceptics on this board, and didn't recognise a like mind when I saw one.
If you are prepared for a bit of a trawl through the Clementine clembase mosaic images ( 30n315, 30s315,30n345, 30s345) you will find plenty more evidence. I don't know what the odds are of six meteorites landing so close together their crater rims are touching , and of those craters being exactly the same size, but there are hundreds of such features on the mosaics. Statistically it's highly unlikely to happen once , and as for them nearly all being aligned East-West, or NW-SE well...
Making claims about mining on the Moon might seem a bit far fetched but once you've seen so many of these things, and all the other so-called 'craters' naturally occurring meteorite activity no longer seems like a satisfactory explanation. Look out for the very bright ones ! Very Happy

Posted: 07-11-2009 23:33 Post subject:

Posted: 08-11-2009 00:36 Post subject:

There are indeed such things as crater chains , and there are recognised examples on the Moon, but these look different. Added to which the Moon's weak gravity may be insufficient for the tidal forces involved . Jupiter's massive gravity field is responsible for pulling large comets such as SL9 and maybe even Venus into the solar system , it can 'reach' further than the Moon, which hasn't got so much potentially meteoritic material within it's far weaker grasp.
They are far smaller than the usual craters. They are nearly always exactly the same size , not just within a chain but compared with the other chains. The rims are touching but instead of what you might expect to see for signs of overlapping - a curved crater rim impinging into the adjacent craters - there are usually no divisions at all or straight ones, not curved.
They are all the same depth, never have any ejecta around them and the meteorites must all have struck at perfect right angles to the surface.
When I said hundreds of these chains, thousands may be more accurate, there are so many I gave up even trying to keep count.

The clembase mosaics take time to download, time to open and at 100% zoom will take hours to trawl round, but it's worth it.

Posted: 08-11-2009 01:30 Post subject:

Most bodies in the solar system, apart from the gas giants, are heavily cratered. (This is part of the process of forming a solar system.)

And most such bodies exhibit crater chains.

Orbital dynamics explain how such chains form.

If you wish to pursue an alternative explanation, you need to produce evidence.

Posted: 08-11-2009 01:39 Post subject:

I thought I just did.
Orbital dynamics doesn't explain these chains, if it did wouldn't Earth be plastered with them ? The clembase mosaics are about 175Mb each so I can't post them here.

Posted: 08-11-2009 02:34 Post subject:

Posted: 08-11-2009 02:38 Post subject:

Posted: 08-11-2009 02:44 Post subject:

Posted: 08-11-2009 03:29 Post subject:

Active erosional processes would indeed remove craters, but my point is that these are not craters anyway. The odds against so many very similarly sized crater chains occurring are far too great for these to be natural craters.

What I meant was evidence of alien activity, I should have phrased that better.
There are people out there who jump to the wrong conclusion but their opinions do not inform me.
Why are you so sure the astronauts didn't see these objects? If they didn't it's likely because they were too busy snapping and moving on to take the next shot to be made up into a panoramic to inspect the subject matter very closely, and if they did see anything they wouldn't just come out and say so.
As for Venus and Velikovsky, I did say maybe and anyway I'm none too impressed with conventional explanations for anything in the solar system.