• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Moon Photo

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Angel of Ioren

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
I just listened to a recent episode where Ricky (Trained Observer) called in and asked about a moon photo.
The discussion sort of got derailed and I was curious to know a little more. I'm skeptical that the moon has anything artificial on it other than stuff we put on there, but I'd be curious to see anything that would prove I should rethink that.
 
I called in Friday to talk about Don's i-conference moon photograph. Some weeks earlier I had called in and said that indeed I could see what looked to be a strange object in the photograph.

Don had been gracious enough to supply the numbers on the photograph to me which allowed Ron to track down the when, where, and how the photograph was taken from which I was able to derive the name and location the crater.

After looking at other photographs and high resolution mosaics of the crater and the region in question, I've concluded that while there are strange looking objects in the photograph as highlighted by the arrows drawn on Don's copy, they only look strange in that photograph. They look strange in other copies of that photograph as well, but in my opinion, other photographs of that crater, under different lighting and resolution, reveal the objects to be normal lunar features.

I meant to say something along those lines but after midnight you are liable to see me easily distracted by tales of dog poop and Bond. The strawberry daiquiri probably didn't help.

Ron has said this before and I agree. If we can only get the locations of where odd features are thought to exist, there is a tremendous of amount of data available now, some of which only recently, that would allow us to explore that region of the moon in greater depth. The locations in the often cropped and anonymous photos online have proven so difficult to track down though.
 
Most of us will have seen phots from the moon that supposedly have been airbrushed. I have seen a few that do look like someone is trying to obscure features and objects. If these exist, as in, are there original phots pre-airbrush?
Might never find out.
 
goggsmackay said:
Most of us will have seen phots from the moon that supposedly have been airbrushed. I have seen a few that do look like someone is trying to obscure features and objects. If these exist, as in, are there original phots pre-airbrush?
Might never find out.
Click to expand...

There are few areas of the moon that only have one photograph taken of them.

There is another thread somewhere where I take one of these blur photos and show other photographs of the region. Many of these anomalies would have to be so gigantic , it would seem that they would leave a mark if actually removed from the moon.

My loose hypothesis is that many of the anomalies that appear in photos are unique to the photograph due to the conditions of camera, exposure, platform, process, and lighting.

Many of the photos available now at the LROC website are incredibly clear. If you have a blur photo in mind, find the name of the crater or feature in the photo. Go to the LROC browser and pull the region up and zoom in to high resolution photos of the region.
 
pixelsmith said:
"the shard" looks odd and unnatural to me.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting if you were able to discover just where on the moon the shard is allegedly standing and look there in the LROC browser. The moon is huge and there are such high resolution shots available now you can get down to looking at object 10 meters across easily.

Some of these anomalous objects appear to be over 25 kilometers by 15 kilometers. When you can zoom down to looking at 10 meter objects in a 25 kilometer patch of ground ... that is a lot of detail to "airbrush" in or out or otherwise create. Then on top of that you have the laser altimeter data and so forth.
 
Here is a blowup of The Shard. As you can see there is no detail. It could be a bit of fuzz or a defect in the film for all we know. This single photo doesn't excite me. If I could see other photos of the region showing something, I would be excited to look at them.

shardtip.jpg
 
The shard does excite me cos it is plain something very large was captured by the Russians. No idea what it might be? Kinda looks like Utopia Planetia?
 
Here is the original photo from which "The Shard" was taken. Do I have to say it?

lo3_m84.gif



Location & Time Information
Date/Time (UT): 1967-02-18 T 00:35:14
Distance/Range (km): 122 km
Central Latitude/Longitude (deg): +0.80/358.96
Orbit(s): N/A
Imaging Information
Area or Feature Type: crater, mare, wrinkle ridge
Instrument: Medium-resolution Camera
Instrument Resolution (pixels): N/A
Instrument Field of View (deg): 44.2 x 37.9
Filter: Clear
Illumination Incidence Angle (deg): 80.17
Phase Angle (deg): 15.55
Instrument Look Direction: N/A
Surface Emission Angle (deg): 71.44

Click here for a high resolution image.
Originating page.
 
i dont know... the shadows dont look right to me and i see no dust on the feet of the landing gear. ;)
 
Back
Top