• 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!

Incredible New Moon Photo

Forums New posts
exo_doc said:
Someone PLEASE look at post # 6 for directions to a possible anomaly. I'd really like someone elses opinion on this. It looks like some kind of huge "X" casting a shadow.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about this? I have done nothing here but crop and rotate the image. What do you guys see? This is a huge object that appears to be casting a shadow on the surface. If we can locate the crater it is in we can scale it and get other photos of the area.

AS11-38-5564_cropped_lower_center.jpg
 
I've said it before about Hoagland and I'll say it again, he's got some interesting stuff about the history of NASA, but besides that, his stuff is pseudoscience at best and outright horseshit at worst. Unlike Douglas Adams, who believed that 42 was the answer to life, the universe, and everything, Hoagland seems to believe the answer is 19.5. I find it hard to take him seriously.
 
In this photo I have tried to match landmarks in Hoagland's photo with my cropped NASA version. It seems Hoaglands' is a bit distorted but some of the landmarks line up. The central square in Hoagland's photo is suggested in the original so I used it to line things up with and scale.

AS11-38-5564_composite.jpg
 
trainedobserver said:
Are you talking about this? I have done nothing here but crop and rotate the image. What do you guys see? This is a huge object that appears to be casting a shadow on the surface. If we can locate the crater it is in we can scale it and get other photos of the area.

AS11-38-5564_cropped_lower_center.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks Trained! I tried to do what you did but I could not get the photo to paste here.
To me it looks like a giant white "X" casting a shadow.
I don't know how to find out which crater it is. Any suggestions?
 
RygyWa said:
I have given old hoagie a tough time in the past. I have blasted him and I know that many on this forum have. I have to give hoagie credit this time. This image is absolutely amazing and incredible. Hoagie released this on the old snoory's show and the image is on c2c website. However, the image appears to be legit. If it is not legit them my bad.

What do you folks think?

From Hoagie "This startling section of Apollo photograph -- AS11-38-5564 -- was taken in lunar orbit by the crew of the first US Lunar Landing Mission, Apollo 11, July 20, 1969. It is an enlargement of what appears to be a massive "pyramid/ziggurat" ... built on the Farside of the Moon."

Hoagland Images: Lunar Ziggurat - Coast to Coast AM

AS11-38-5564-Mike-oirginal-enhanced3.jpg



Is that incredible or what?

Daedalus-Ziggurat-AS11-38-5564.jpg


credit to Dick Hoagland

Hoagland Images: Lunar Ziggurat - Coast to Coast AM
Click to expand...

The Hoagland image is nothing new Ryan! The same image has been up on the web as far back as 2003. It only took me five minutes of investigation to find this not hard at all.

Hoagland, is a liar and a cheat taking credit for something belonging to another is what is going on here. He has a habit of stealing other people ideas and claiming there his. But at the end of the day the Nasa photo does not show a pyramid like object, you must need glasses, if you see that image in the original image. Doesn't matter if you believe it has been cleaned up, the image is not present on the original.

Check out these sites have more but enough prove below..

CoDz Forum • View topic - NASA Moon image AS11-38-5564 Dated Oct 2011

Pyramids

Richard Hoagland’s Ziggurat on the Moon: Hoax or Fraud, but Not Real « Exposing PseudoAstronomy

I found this online also recent debunking of this image. While i don't always agree with Skeptics often, with this i do 100 per cent.

Hoagland being Walter Cronkike's science adviser that has been debunked ages ago. He was lying..
 
Guys, after zooming into the pic Trained had done, I found a shadow or black area in a perfect equilateral triangle (3 sides same length, 3 60 deg angles).
Also, where pointed out there are some interesting objects, the ones at the left seem to be above the surface with shadows, which in my book makes it unlikely they are just artefacts.

Thoughts people?

moonpic.jpg

Obviously I highlighted the 'triangle' but check it with Trained's one to see the triangle without my coloured lines.

At the very least it is interesting even if it's proof of nothing cos the image quality cannot be relied upon.

And this is just great and I am posting it cos I just found it again when putting the above pic on..

peekaboo.jpg
 
lancemoody said:
Hi,

I don't think it was drawn in originally, I think it was just an artifact of blowing the image up so large and compression.

Best,

Lance
Click to expand...

I think it was drawn in. That artifact does not occur when I blow the NASA copy up. If Hoagland has a print that he has blown up and digitized, I still say someone drew it in. If not Hoagland, then someone who feeds him this material.
 
vesvehighfolk said:
FAKE!!!! here is a website on it!

Richard Hoagland’s Ziggurat on the Moon: Hoax or Fraud, but Not Real « Exposing PseudoAstronomy

The Emoluments of Mars

took all of 5 min to find...as they say on TV this one is BUSTED!
Click to expand...

The guy did an excellent write up on that. He followed pretty much the same process as I did. I have to say it only took me minutes to find the shadow and crater pattern in the original rather than an hour probably because I've been playing in the LROC browser and was lucky. I encourage everyone interested in the moon to frequent the LROC website, get hooked into the browser and look at the moon. The LROC website also has many other great features as well.

In his conclusion he says this proves Hoagland is either incompetent or a liar. I'm thinking it is pretty much both. I am convinced that Richard Hoagland is perpetuating a hoax and is too incompetent to know how simple it is to find him out.
 
I think this one indeed is busted.

But I would like to quote something from the Stuart Robbins piece which interested me:
I would argue that the shading as presented is not possible on the Moon and is a fairly clear sign of a hoax/fraud right off the bat.

But I thought that was an argument used AGAINST the Apollo phots on the surface being real?
That things in shadow should indeed be jet black and nothing should be back-lit without a secondary light source?

DISCLAIMER! I have zero experience in image analysis, so can someone else weigh in on this point?
 
goggsmackay said:
Anyone have any opinions on all those twin or double craters that litter the moon?
Click to expand...

They aren't too uncommon. I think they are formed when a some body that has broken up somewhere along the way impacts the moon. Think about Shoemaker Levy on a smaller scale. The moon went through a period of terrifically frequent impacts. Much has been covered up by the lava flows that form the moon's seas.
 
goggsmackay said:
I think this one indeed is busted.

But I would like to quote something from the Stuart Robbins piece which interested me:
I would argue that the shading as presented is not possible on the Moon and is a fairly clear sign of a hoax/fraud right off the bat.

But I thought that was an argument used AGAINST the Apollo phots on the surface being real?
That things in shadow should indeed be jet black and nothing should be back-lit without a secondary light source?

DISCLAIMER! I have zero experience in image analysis, so can someone else weigh in on this point?
Click to expand...

I think you are talking apples and oranges there.

The fact that the left wall of thing in Hoagland's photo is not in shadow is a dead giveaway that the image has been greatly manipulated. If the claim is some software was applied to the photo bring this out then you have to ask what software package, where the copy they were working from originated (print or from the NASA website), and very importantly, what were the settings and steps used to bring this out of the photo?

I am going with it being actually drawn in and highlighted. Perhaps Lance is correct after all. I think the general shape of the top of the structure was probably spotted by applying filters thereby distorting the image to the point someone's apophenia kicked in and they just outlined it for us to see.
 
Back
Top