Object in Lobachevsky crater

[Clanger]

After watching the new Jose Escamilla film, I find myself intrigued at one of his observations. Normally his take on towers and objects, brightly coloured Moon etc. is just nonsense, but this one - well what do you think?

The video is found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=O6ggirhnTm4

At 10minutes 48 seconds he presents this observation. Here is a screenshot of it taken from Lobachevsky crater on image AS17-150-23085



Here is the other picture he uses:
http://archive.org/details/as16-121-19407

ETA: NASA have labelled as16-121-19407 as Lobachevsky on that website just above, but on other references, they label it as Guyot. I suspect it is the latter.

So, what is that?

[Strange]

Here is the other picture he uses:
http://archive.org/details/as16-121-19407

So, what is that?

So what is wrong with the description on that page? It seems to match the image.

[Clanger]

No, what is that in the photograph I posted.

I think NASA have mixed up which crater that second link refers to, see my edited post above.

[Strange]

OK, so they may have misnamed the crater (in one or the other case).

But what is wrong with the description?

The CMP described a black flow associated with a small crater in the wall of a large flat-side crater.
...
A tongue of low-albedo material extends approximately 2km down the steep wall of Lobachevsky fromt he low point on the rim of the small crater.

I assume it is that dark lava flow you are referring to?

[Clanger]

OK, so they may have misnamed the crater (in one or the other case).

But what is wrong with the description?


I assume it is that dark lava flow you are referring to?

The Apollo 16 picture isn't the same "object" as the Apollo 17 one.

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/2...1211940712.jpg

Please ignore the Apollo 16 reference, Escamilla says it is a "before and after" thing, which is clearly nonsense(and probably because it is a different crater anyway).

I am intrigued as to what that thing is dead center on the Apollo 17 post 1 picture above.

[HenrikOlsen]

After watching the new Jose Escamilla film, I find myself intrigued at one of his observations. Normally his take on towers and objects, brightly coloured Moon etc. is just nonsense, but this one - well what do you think?
<snip>
So, what is that?

Still nonsense.

Pareidolia combined with creative cropping to mask which part of the image is crater rim.

[Strange]

I am intrigued as to what that thing is dead center on the Apollo 17 post 1 picture above.

The picture is such low resolution, I can't tell what it is. I assumed it was the same thing from a different angle. If it isn't then I guess it is something similar from a different angle. Or the shadow of a rock. Or something.

[HenrikOlsen]

The Apollo 16 picture isn't the same "object" as the Apollo 17 one.

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/2...1211940712.jpg

Please ignore the Apollo 16 reference, Escamilla says it is a "before and after" thing, which is clearly nonsense(and probably because it is a different crater anyway).

I am intrigued as to what that thing is dead center on the Apollo 17 post 1 picture above.

The link is to a crop of http://archive.org/details/as16-121-19407 which IS from Apollo 16.

West wall of the far-side Crater Lobachevsky. The CMP described a black flow associated with a small crater in the wall of a large flat-side crater. This oblique telephotgraph northwestward across terrain in and northwest of Lobachevsky, an 80-km-diameter crater centered near latitude 9N, longitude 113E, shows a 2.5-km-diameter crater near the top of the west wall of the large crater. A tongue of low-albedo material extends approximately 2km down the steep wall of Lobachevsky from the low point on the rim of the small crater. Image was taken during Revolution 37 of the Apollo 16 mission. Original film magazine was labeled PP, filmtype was SO-368 Color Exterior, 250mm lens with a sun elevation of 47 degrees. Approximate Altitude was 115 km. Principal Point Latitude was 10.0N by Longitude 111.3E, with a camera tilt of 65 degrees and an azimuth of 315 degrees.

[Clanger]

The link is to a crop of http://archive.org/details/as16-121-19407 which IS from Apollo 16.

There is some confusion here. Let me make it more clear.

The Apollo 16 picture is not the same crater as the picture in post 1, Escamilla thinks it is based on what I just found out (and edited into my first post) a difference in what NASA says that crater is. I think it is Guyot and as such, please ignore it. The crop is one I uploaded to verify that the two objects are definitely not the same.

[Clanger]

Still nonsense.

Pareidolia combined with creative cropping to mask which part of the image is crater rim.

That is my crop from the original picture

I am not so sure about pareidolia - could be I suppose, but the "object" stands out when you adjust the image. Here is the full crater and two adjusted colour/contrast pictures(animated gif) that make it really stand out.

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/791/whatisit.gif

[R.A.F.]

After watching the new Jose Escamilla film, I find myself intrigued at one of his observations.

You mean this "Jose Escamilla"?

Normally his take on towers and objects, brightly coloured Moon etc. is just nonsense...

Yes...that's certainly true...

....but this one - well what do you think?

Yes...an unusual LOOKING feature on the Moon....so what?

Why would you think that a known "woo" would have anything other than woo "ideas"??

[captain swoop]

Maybe a Clanger left the lid off.

[Swift]

The Apollo 16 picture isn't the same "object" as the Apollo 17 one.

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/2...1211940712.jpg

Please ignore the Apollo 16 reference, Escamilla says it is a "before and after" thing, which is clearly nonsense(and probably because it is a different crater anyway).

I am intrigued as to what that thing is dead center on the Apollo 17 post 1 picture above.

It looks exactly to me like dark material flowing or ejected from the crater, even without the NASA description.

[JustAFriend]

Instead of trying to figure out what it is from a tiny jpeg, try looking at the full-sized 48mb tiff file.

Looks like a small impactor hit the edge of the crater, creating a small oblique crater and ejecting out some darker material.

[Clanger]

Instead of trying to figure out what it is from a tiny jpeg, try looking at the full-sized 48mb tiff file.

Looks like a small impactor hit the edge of the crater, creating a small oblique crater and ejecting out some darker material.

That is the Apollo 16 picture and I agree with you. The Apollo 17 picture in the first post is a crop from the TIFF file, contrast and colour adjusted - what do you think that is?

[Strange]

So can you post a link to the original Apollo 17 TIFF file.

[Clanger]

You mean this "Jose Escamilla"?

Let's not go down the ad-hominem route.

Yes...an unusual LOOKING feature on the Moon....so what?

I was intrigued as to what it is and wanted the opinion of some experts on this board.

Why would you think that a known "woo" would have anything other than woo "ideas"??

That is circular logic I'm afraid. The observation is a valid one, what he concludes it is, is almost certainly not.

What do you think it is?

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/attachme...chmentid=17366

[Swift]

What do you think it is?

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/attachme...chmentid=17366

That picture is so tiny it is hard for me to say, but I don't see anything weird in that picture. It looks like some lumpy, hilly landscape.

[NEOWatcher]

The Apollo 17 picture in the first post is a crop from the TIFF file, contrast and colour adjusted - what do you think that is?

A "lossy" version of the TIFF file that introduces compression artifacts into the picture.

The video is very clear that its a rock tumbled down the side of the crater with a shadow past it.
Once he zooms, the pixelation and his overlays pointing to his interpretation distort it.

[Clanger]

That picture is so tiny it is hard for me to say, but I don't see anything weird in that picture. It looks like some lumpy, hilly landscape.

Apollo 11 captured the crater with a different view, now this one makes me more inclined to think it is pareidolia after all.

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/615/5425.jpg


Unless someone has anything further to add, you may as well close this thread.

[R.A.F.]

Let's not go down the ad-hominem route.

No comment, as that doesn't apply.

I was intrigued as to what it is...

It is a mundane feature on the Moon.

The observation is a valid one...

What do you mean by "valid observation"??

What do you think it is?

As I posted...a mundane feature on the moon....nothing more.

[R.A.F.]

Unless someone has anything further to add, you may as well close this thread.

I still don't know what claim it was you were making to begin with...

[JayUtah]

It's conclusively an asymmetrical ejecta blanket from a highly oblique impact. When an object strikes at an oblique angle, some very interesting patterns form in the ejecta. Materials of different compositions, masses, and therefore different colors, have been preferentially deposited downrange of the impact.

You've posted material presented and interpreted by Jose Escamilla. Therefore Escamilla's expertise at and history of photographic (mis)interpretation is not ad hominem or off-topic. You may be interested to know that Escamilla himself showed up at the former BAUT and made quite a nuisance of himself. It descended quickly into Escamilla simply demanding to be taken seriously, while being completely unable to answer simple questions about his "analysis" and "enhancement." Things really livened up when the professional photographic interpreter he hired to confirm his findings showed up to answer Escamilla's charges that the analyst had defrauded him for not endorsing his claims. While not strictly related to the feature in the photograph in question, when you frame something in conspiracist tones on a skeptical board, you have to expect people to address the conspiracy aspect of it.

[HenrikOlsen]

You've posted material presented and interpreted by Jose Escamilla. Therefore Escamilla's expertise at and history of photographic (mis)interpretation is not ad hominem or off-topic.

But Jose Escamilla is definitely a pre-poisoned well here.

Calling him a "general woo-meister" as the linked page does is something of an ad-hom, but calling him on his lack of understanding of photographic analysis definitely isn't. I mean, I think he knows less than I do and what I know is mostly that I don't know a lot.

You may be interested to know that Escamilla himself showed up at the former BAUT and made quite a nuisance of himself. It descended quickly into Escamilla simply demanding to be taken seriously, while being completely unable to answer simple questions about his "analysis" and "enhancement." Things really livened up when the professional photographic interpreter he hired to confirm his findings showed up to answer Escamilla's charges that the analyst had defrauded him for not endorsing his claims.

It's interesting that the rationalwiki page on him actually has that thread as one of its references. Likely because it's such a perfect example of his style.

[Swift]

Unless someone has anything further to add, you may as well close this thread.

We normally only close threads if they are becoming too impolite or out of control, are severe violations of our rules, or an advocator of non-mainstream claims is failing to follow our specific rules for CT and ATM.

I put this whole thread into the category of you asking a question, rather than you advocating some hoax or conspiracy. Given that, you are under no obligation to post further in this thread if you don't want to.

But the thread will remain open, in case others wish to discuss the topic.

[Clanger]

It's conclusively an asymmetrical ejecta blanket from a highly oblique impact. When an object strikes at an oblique angle, some very interesting patterns form in the ejecta. Materials of different compositions, masses, and therefore different colors, have been preferentially deposited downrange of the impact.

That sounds like an answer I can relate to. Interestingly, when I rotate the pictures, the actual "object" merges far easier with the surface, so the pareidolia becomes less obvious.

You've posted material presented and interpreted by Jose Escamilla.

I do hope nobody thinks I endorse it. It was the first thing I have ever seen from him that I didn't have a definitive answer for - now I do. Hopefully anybody coming across this on the web, in the future, will be able to find this explanation with the links/picture references etc.

[JayUtah]

But Jose Escamilla is definitely a pre-poisoned well here.

Very much so. Despite a polite reception, he was belligerent and insulting from the start. He failed to support his claims and behaved very rudely while engaged in such failure.

Calling him a "general woo-meister" as the linked page does is something of an ad-hom...

Unprofessionally phrased -- agreed. However "general woo-meister" is a reasonably accurate summary of his public work, if we understand the same thing by "woo." For people who want to know who he is and what he does, it's okay to summarize. My housemates asked me, "Who's this Gore Vidal guy we just hear died?" A reasonable summary would be, "He was an author and playwright. He also played the Director in Gattaca." Similarly if someone asks, "Who's Jose Escamilla?" It's not ad hominem to say he's a general purveyor of fringe theories that have little or no substance. There is a basis of fact to support such a characterization and summary.

Where that statement becomes ad hominem -- and has been defensibly defined as such here -- is where the claim is "Escamilla says this feature is a space alien," and the response is, "Well so what? Escamilla is a nut job." That fails to address any line of resoning Escamilla may have offered in defense of his opinion. If any of that involves Escamilla's opinion or interpretation (and much of his earlier debate did), then Escamilla's personal skill at doing it, and his history of having done it well or poorly, again become relevant. So it's not always a clear-cut case.

[R.A.F.]

I do hope nobody thinks I endorse it.

As Jay posted....you presented it.

You did post a "sort of" disclaimer, but when you are talking about people who mistake video artifacts of insects as if they are some new strange life form, well, it reminds me of that old saying....

When you sleep with dogs, don't be surprised when you get fleas. (or whatever that saying is)

[JayUtah]

That sounds like an answer I can relate to. Interestingly, when I rotate the pictures, the actual "object" merges far easier with the surface, so the pareidolia becomes less obvious.

Not unexpected. Lighting angles will change apparent brightness, etc. Different orientations suggest different interpretations. Pareidolia is a staple of Escamilla's method, so take steps to avoid it if you want to vet his interpretations.

I do hope nobody thinks I endorse it. It was the first thing I have ever seen from him that I didn't have a definitive answer for - now I do. Hopefully anybody coming across this on the web, in the future, will be able to find this explanation with the links/picture references etc.

It was clear in your original posting that you thought most of what Escamilla says in general is "nonsense." Considering the source doesn't necessarily mean considering the person who cites the source.

[R.A.F.]

It was clear in your original posting that you thought most of what Escamilla says in general is "nonsense." Considering the source doesn't necessarily mean considering the person who cites the source.

I completely agree, and apologise if my posts suggested anything otherwise.