http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/04/23/new-study-strange-structures-passageways-leading-underground-discovered-on-far-side-of-the-moon/
The report referenced within appears to be of a higher and more serious quality than the usual "Look what I found on a NASA photo". Human nature being what it, I guess this is how the matter gets established in science and away from ridicule or the ignored fringe.
It's an interesting report, I'll take a look at the original photos. :)
PS: I'm not sure, but I think the name "Carlotto" sounds familiar.
Quote from: ArMaP on April 23, 2017, 11:51:40 PM
It's an interesting report, I'll take a look at the original photos. :)
PS: I'm not sure, but I think the name "Carlotto" sounds familiar.
Mark Carlotto gained fame in the 90's from Hoagland's Face On Mars book.
Quote from: A51Watcher on April 24, 2017, 12:24:13 AM
Mark Carlotto gained fame in the 90's from Hoagland's Face On Mars book.
Thanks, I thought it sounded familiar. :)
It looks like there's something wrong in the report, as it says that the bigger structure's length is 235 pixels, but I measure 121 on the original image.
Latest Moon Anomaly to look at
Got this just before turning in so haven't had time to follow up on it yet
(https://scontent.flas1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18274938_10155284168014894_3451678699427464988_n.jpg?oh=fe2f9a2bae9c312c3f49c52012d5e562&oe=597A6C8E)
As you can see it was already posted, so I joined the two threads. :)
During the (long) weekend I went looking for more photos of this area, I will post my findings at the end of the day. :)
For me, it is a bit of a stretch to consider this to be anything un-natural. The Moon does have a lot of un-natural looking stuff, but this one showing some surface scrapes or gouges is a bit normal.........for the Moon's surface isn't it?? :)
About the size of the "objects", I had confirmation through the other photos that the size on the report is wrong.
I downloaded image M118769870LC, opened it on ISIS (Integrated Software for Imagers and Spectrometers, a suite of programs freely available from the USGS, used by the scientists to work with NASA images and other data) and measured it. As the image doesn't have enough metadata the program I used (qview) wasn't enabled to show the measurements in metres, only in pixels, but this is what it showed.
(click for full size)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Screenshot_M118769870LC.png) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Screenshot_M118769870LC.png)
It shows around 120, not 235 as Carlotto says, so it doesn't measure 129 metres but around half of that.
I downloaded the other LROC photos listed on the report and measured the object in those, and this was the result:
Photo M1153132512RC (click for full size)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Screenshot_M1153132512RC.png) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Screenshot_M1153132512RC.png)
Photo M1115441699LC (click for full size)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Screenshot_M1115441699LC.png) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Screenshot_M1115441699LC.png)
Photo M1168450258LC (click for full size)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Screenshot_M1168450258LC.png) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Screenshot_M1168450258LC.png)
The measurements are like this:
M118769870L: 66 metres
M1115441699L: 64 metres
M1153132512R: 63 metres
M1168450258L: 71 metres
Although there are discrepancies they are all close to the average of 66 metres.
As I usually do, I went looking for more LROC photos of that area, and found some more. When I was looking at one of them I used the "stretch" option to make it brighter, as it was too dark, and this was the result:
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Screenshot_M1207284757LC.png) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Screenshot_M1207284757LC.png)
After seing that I "stretched" all the photos, and they look like this:
(click for full size)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/M1207284757LC_1.png) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/M1207284757LC_1.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/M1207277724LC_1.png) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/M1207277724LC_1.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/M1168450258LC_1.png) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/M1168450258LC_1.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/M1115441699LC_1.png) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/M1115441699LC_1.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/M1153132512RC_1.png) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/M1153132512RC_1.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/M118769870LC_1.png) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/M118769870LC_1.png)
I know that I always say that, but they look like rocks. :)
PS: "stretching" the colours takes all the colours in the image or area and distributes them from 0 (black) to 255 (white), making the difference in shades more noticeable.