Moon anomalies

John X

New Member
I found this video, is in Portuguese but is not important what he is saying, what is interesting is what the video shows. The video show what appears to be several non natural formations in the moon surface and areas covered with black, using google moon(google earth). I've checked on google moon myself and i found them myself.


 

John X

New Member
I found this video, is in Portuguese but is not important what he is saying, what is interesting is what the video shows. The video show what appears to be several non natural formations in the moon surface and areas covered with black, using google moon(google earth). I've checked on google moon myself and i found them myself.
Sorry i mistake , this is the proper video link
 

John X

New Member
No Mike, that has nothing to be with it, pls take a look, looks legit... Ive checked on google earth my self.


Please watch it, since there is several structures to debunk.

Thanks a lot!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No Mike, that has nothing to be with it, pls take a look, looks legit... Ive checked on google earth my self.


Please watch it, since there is several structures to debunk.

Thanks a lot!
Can you pick the best one, and give me the coordinates.
 

John X

New Member
21° 1'5.98"N 17°43'55.42" This is the most impressive. I work with photography, i know know it could have been faked, but then should be someone working at google. Notice not only the structure but the blacked patch on the right.

21° 1'5.98"N 17°43'55.42" More black patches, notice also in the grayed area how there would seem several lines that look like 90 degree angles .

22.257899° 8.314009° This one looks like some sort of building.

22.496790° 2.476093° Another black patch that shows some structure under

There is many more, let me know if you want to see it. For now this should be enough.
 

John X

New Member
This one looks also really interesting, probably the most interesting. It looks like a number 5 in whats look like a base.

19.983094° 21.193289°
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I wish to add that also....as a long-time proponent and "viewer" of many, many images from the Moon?

This is simply another instance of a misconception.

I think "Mick West" explained it already.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
@John X?

I'd be happy to to discuss further. Perhaps in PMs? (I HAVE a certain great knowledge about the Apollo Program, due to a LOT of research on my part....).
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
21° 1'5.98"N 17°43'55.42" This is the most impressive. I work with photography, i know know it could have been faked, but then should be someone working at google. Notice not only the structure but the blacked patch on the right.

21° 1'5.98"N 17°43'55.42" More black patches, notice also in the grayed area how there would seem several lines that look like 90 degree angles .

22.257899° 8.314009° This one looks like some sort of building.

22.496790° 2.476093° Another black patch that shows some structure under

There is many more, let me know if you want to see it. For now this should be enough.
You're just looking at very dirty scans of very low-resolution photographs of the moon. Pictures coming of the first area in question...
 

John X

New Member
I apologize for non being satisfied with the answer. The post you send me looks nothing like the one i sent you. I dont see any 90 degree angle on the link you sent me.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/solved-alien-with-shadow-on-the-moon-debris-in-camera.4163/

Also could you explain the black patches and the first location i specified 21° 1'5.98"N 17°43'55.42"

I do understand what you say about the speck of dirt. Im a photographer. And does apply to the example that you show me but not the what ive shown you.

Sorry for being insistent.


Perhaps if you could show an similar example of a formation like that on google earth would be useful.

Thanks again
 

Attachments

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I apologize for non being satisfied with the answer. The post you send me looks nothing like the one i sent you. I dont see any 90 degree angle on the link you sent me.
You have to zoom in. This is the "moon man"
27°34'26.35" -19°36'4.75"


Notice the lines at right angles.

For similar rectangular things in google earth, just zoom in anywhere with poor coverage, like Northern Canada.
56.031502°, -71.338604°
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
John, if you want to look at moon images, Google Moon is frankly terrible. It uses horribly low-contrast, dirty scans of the old photos. If you use the LROC QuickMap site, you can see much cleaner, better scans of old photos, and then if you zoom in you will see ultra close-up views down to 50cm per pixel in many places.

Here is the same view in both Google Moon and QuickMap. See the difference?


moon.jpg lroc.jpg


Zooming in on your first "anomaly" - here it is in Google Moon:

CRATER.JPG

And here is the same area in close-up. The crater which is a barely visible bowl in the Google Moon image even with contrast enhanced is revealed in fantastic detail, with sunlit boulders casting long shadows. The "anomaly" just to its west is nowhere to be seen, because it was just dirt on the scan.

CRATER2.JPG


Here is a link to the area in question in QuickMap.

http://target.lroc.asu.edu/q3/?proj=orthons&center=623212.47554,494321.57174504&zoom=12&lt=Overlays=llgrid,F,70;moonsunlit,T,70;satview,F,;lroc_feat_images,F,;moon_ft,F,;=InstrumentFootprints=m3_fprints,F,50;nac_fprints,F,100;=LROCRequestedTargets=mt,F,90;nac_hisun,F,30;nac_losun,F,30;=ClementineProducts=lclem_mr,F,100;=Chandrayaan1Products=m3_mosaic_op2c3,F,100;m3_mosaic_op2c2,F,100;m3_mosaic_op2c1,F,100;m3_mosaic_op2b,F,100;m3_mosaic_op2a,F,100;m3_mosaic_op1b,F,100;m3_mosaic_op1a,F,100;l_ch1_mrf,F,100;=LRODivinerMapProducts=dlre_stn,F,50;dlre_st,F,50;dlre_ra,F,50;dlre_cf,F,25;=LROMiniRFProducts=l_lro_mrf,F,100;=LROLROCNAC=lnpm,F,100;lnpole,F,100;lnbrowse,F,100;lorthonac,F,100;lndtms,F,100;lndtmcs,F,100;=LROLROCBasemaps=lillum,F,100;wac_colortest_64ppd,F,100;wac_demclrshd2_128ppd,F,30;wac_albedo,F,100;wac_far,F,100;wac_near,F,100;wac_bw_v1_par,F,100;wac_bw_v1_plus_nacs,T,100;=
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
View attachment 10546 Mick, please take a look again, i took photoshop to make it clear.
Notice how all those "right-angles" are parallel to the edges of the image strips? As a rule of thumb, if you see 90-degree angles on satellite imagery where you wouldn't expect it, look at the pixels. If they're aligned with the pixel grid, there is your answer.
 

John X

New Member
You could use the same logic for saying that that they went too far with high definition strip and they covered the structures with black.

Also why would most of the moon be blurred int the first place?

And what are the black patches covering?

Why the all show 90 degree edges?
 

Attachments

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You could use the same logic for saying that that they went too far with high definition strip and they covered the structures with black.
That's not really logic, that's just extreme speculation.

Also why would most of the moon be blurred int the first place?
Because they used low res photos, as explained before.

And what are the black patches covering?
Nothing. There's nothing there. It's an area where there are no data for pixels in that strip.

Why the all show 90 degree edges?
Because pixels and image patches have 90 degree edges
 

John X

New Member
Notice how all those "right-angles" are parallel to the edges of the image strips? As a rule of thumb, if you see 90-degree angles on satellite imagery where you wouldn't expect it, look at the pixels. If they're aligned with the pixel grid, there is your answer.

I dont get it could you try to give an detailed example?

Also can some one show me anything similar to this image in google earth, i mean if you see this on earth you would asume is man made.
 

Attachments

John X

New Member
That's not really logic, that's just extreme speculation.


Because they used low res photos, as explained before.


Nothing. There's nothing there. It's an area where there are no data for pixels in that strip.


Because pixels and image patches have 90 degree edges

Thanks Mike, i dont know if you notice that in some pictures you can clearly see that there is something under. Why would you put a black patch if it is not to cover something?

Can we agree that they are black patches?

You can see underlines in some parts.

Also if you could provide similar glitches in google earth?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
John, please don't add images as attachments, insert them into the posts. You can edit the above to do this. See the "No click" policy.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/metabunks-no-click-policy.5158/
Image attachments should be inserted into the post, not attached at the end where the reader has to click on them. Attachments such as PDF files should be treated as links, with an explanation of what the file contains, and if possible quote the relevant text and/or images.​
 

Efftup

Senior Member
John, if you want to look at moon images, Google Moon is frankly terrible. It uses horribly low-contrast, dirty scans of the old photos. If you use the LROC QuickMap site, you can see much cleaner, better scans of old photos, and then if you zoom in you will see ultra close-up views down to 50cm per pixel in many places.

Here is the same view in both Google Moon and QuickMap. See the difference?




Zooming in on your first "anomaly" - here it is in Google Moon:

View attachment 10544

And here is the same area in close-up. The crater which is a barely visible bowl in the Google Moon image even with contrast enhanced is revealed in fantastic detail, with sunlit boulders casting long shadows. The "anomaly" just to its west is nowhere to be seen, because it was just dirt on the scan.

View attachment 10545


Here is a link to the area in question in QuickMap.

http://target.lroc.asu.edu/q3/?proj=orthons&center=623212.47554,494321.57174504&zoom=12&lt=Overlays=llgrid,F,70;moonsunlit,T,70;satview,F,;lroc_feat_images,F,;moon_ft,F,;=InstrumentFootprints=m3_fprints,F,50;nac_fprints,F,100;=LROCRequestedTargets=mt,F,90;nac_hisun,F,30;nac_losun,F,30;=ClementineProducts=lclem_mr,F,100;=Chandrayaan1Products=m3_mosaic_op2c3,F,100;m3_mosaic_op2c2,F,100;m3_mosaic_op2c1,F,100;m3_mosaic_op2b,F,100;m3_mosaic_op2a,F,100;m3_mosaic_op1b,F,100;m3_mosaic_op1a,F,100;l_ch1_mrf,F,100;=LRODivinerMapProducts=dlre_stn,F,50;dlre_st,F,50;dlre_ra,F,50;dlre_cf,F,25;=LROMiniRFProducts=l_lro_mrf,F,100;=LROLROCNAC=lnpm,F,100;lnpole,F,100;lnbrowse,F,100;lorthonac,F,100;lndtms,F,100;lndtmcs,F,100;=LROLROCBasemaps=lillum,F,100;wac_colortest_64ppd,F,100;wac_demclrshd2_128ppd,F,30;wac_albedo,F,100;wac_far,F,100;wac_near,F,100;wac_bw_v1_par,F,100;wac_bw_v1_plus_nacs,T,100;=
On the decent quality image, the lumpy bit has a something white-ish that is casting a shadow. Any idea what it is? is it something left behind by an Apollo mission? An actual boulder? or a Clanger Obelisk? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clangers
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Also if you could provide similar glitches in google earth?
Google Earth does a much better job of stitching things together, as it has got thousands of times more high quality images. As noted above, if you look at better quality Moon images, then these glitches vanish.
 

John X

New Member
One more picture, how come the supposed glitch, (btw this is not near the low ress line), how come is perfectly aligned with true north.

Base 5 c..PNG

Now let me ask you and answer me honestly, if you see that picture on google earth would you say that looks artificial or natural? Honest answer pls.

The lines shows that i about 200 meters long and 250 meters wide, quiet accurate.

Again here you have the coordinates.

19.979609° 21.189101°

Thanks again for your time Mike, i can see that we might disagree on this one (at least so far im not conviced)

Regardless, thanks for taking the time and keep up the good work.
 

Attachments

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
On the decent quality image, the lumpy bit has a something white-ish that is casting a shadow. Any idea what it is? is it something left behind by an Apollo mission? An actual boulder? or a Clanger Obelisk? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clangers
It's a boulder. The "lumpy bit" is a crater, with the light coming from the left. It's a boulder on the shadowed downslope of the crater, with the top lit by the sun, and casting a very long shadow down the slope. Looking at the shadows you can see that the sun angle is close to the angle of the crater slope.

CRATER2.JPG
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
One more picture, how come the supposed glitch, (btw this is not near the low ress line), how come is perfectly aligned with true north.

View attachment 10553
The fact it is perfectly aligned with true north, and therefore with the pixel grid, shows that it is just a compression artifact.

Compare with this image. Notice the regular grid, even in the background? It is especially noticeable over at the left-hand side.

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
One more picture, how come the supposed glitch, (btw this is not near the low ress line), how come is perfectly aligned with true north.
Because all the pixels are aligned with true north.

Image compression splits an image into 8x8 blocks, which will, in GE, be aligned with true north, so you will see these types of thing.
 

Efftup

Senior Member
It's a boulder. The "lumpy bit" is a crater, with the light coming from the left. It's a boulder on the shadowed downslope of the crater, with the top lit by the sun, and casting a very long shadow down the slope. Looking at the shadows you can see that the sun angle is close to the angle of the crater slope.

View attachment 10555
wow. That's an interesting optical illusion, it looks more like a hill/mountain than a crater to me. but that actually makes sense cos of the shadows around the boulder considering the light is clearly coming from the left
 

John X

New Member
Comparition.jpg
Sorry i dont get it. I dont see logic on this.

Comparition 3.jpg
Those two images looks nothing similar.

I dont want to go further today, if you are convinced good for you.

However i will try to make sense of what you are telling me.

Cheers
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
View attachment 10557
Sorry i dont get it. I dont see logic on this.

View attachment 10558
Those two images looks nothing similar.

I dont want to go further today, if you are convinced good for you.

However i will try to make sense of what you are telling me.

Cheers
The image demonstrates the north-south alignment of pixels.

The moon image is more highly compressed, and filtered differently. You probably will not find anything like it on the Earth images.

It's a speck of dirt on a compressed image, that's all. I don't see anything all that is inconsistent with that.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
View attachment 10557
Sorry i dont get it. I dont see logic on this.
I'm not sure why you are quoting the high-resolution image there. They won't look alike. My point was simply to show that if there was anything there, you would be able to see it in enormous detail. That is the exact same location as the first of the "anomalies" you posted, and yet even at 50cm resolution there is nothing there except craters and rocks.
 
Top