1. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2019
  2. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    ...perhaps a highlighted area to examine ?
    The caption says, ".....(they) review early results from the centaur and spacecraft impacts.

    You seem to think this rectangle is "raw data".
    Is it ?
    Why not write them and ask them about the photo ? Answers are often there, if you investigate before accuse.

    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    There's an extensive discussion of that photo here:


    With an explanation from Anthony Colaprete (whose arm is resting on the photo in question):

    Last edited: May 11, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Debunking tip: use an online image search, like Google Images. Save the image on your desktop, then drag it into Google Images, and then you can see if other people have already debunked it.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    cool tip !
  6. Spongebob

    Spongebob Active Member

    Wow! Just tried this and it gives you a nice pop up box to drag your images into. Cool.
  7. Robbert

    Robbert New Member

    Dear Mister West,

    Although it has been several years this picture made some disturbance in the UFO scene, I would like to add something to it. First and foremost this is not the way to debunk something. You have done no proper research and also took the explanation from a NASA employee for granted. Let me address the following. You have to understand that NASA doesn't use any grid patterns anymore to pinpoint a specific location on the lunar surfacve since the mid seventies after they mapped the whole lunar surface in a incredible detailed way. How I know? A very good friend of mine was a frame engineer through the nineties at NASA. So let's assume the grid is not being used, what is it what we are seeing? As being a former environmental engineer I can see more anomolies that are being out of place and not do not represent natural shapes. I have examined this picture together with some technical engineers and what we see more is that the grid shows depth. However your debunk tip does not make up for the fact you should take it for granted by stating that this is the result from a simple drag and drop. Now as far as it goes for the depth in the grid we see light coming from the north east that reflects the surface as it does for the the rooftop of this structure. We measured the light strength on this picture and the conclusion is that the light of the rooftop has the same strength as the surroundings. The shadow on the rooftop has the same angle as the shadows in the environment.

    Then in the left corner of the structure we see another structure that resembles the same features with perfect angles. Nature doesn't build in perfect angles. Another issue is the picture itself. If you plot a grid on a grainy picture the grid itself is sharp and detailed. This so called grid has the exact same grainy look as the rest of this picture. That should not be possible. And the last thing I would like to add is that this so called structure cast its own shadow on the lunar surface. Our conclusion is that there are several structures on this pictures, no grid is being used, light and shadow are undeniably there, light strength is the same as the exact grainy overall look of this picture. I am not here to attack you, but just want to show you a different perspective to look at this.

    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2019
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Unless you can back that up, then the rest of your post is irrelevant. Remember this is specifically for identifying a landing spot based on a video image. How else would they do it?

    Colaprete also supplied the images from the 3D model (from which the photo came)


    It's quite obviously just a reference grid.
    Metabunk 2019-05-11 09-27-04.

    But if you wish to continue to make a case, I'd encourage you to use images, and not descriptions. It really not clear what you are referring to.
  9. Alexandria Nick

    Alexandria Nick New Member

    Plus, even if true, it isn't relevant. "Through the nineties" isn't particularly useful when referring a program that stood up in 2004. Plenty of time to start doing things differently, especially when considering that LCROSS was a sister mission to LRO's mapping project.