Can someone tell me what this is please?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ocpaul20
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a structure observed in a Clementine Mission photo of the moon, with participants questioning its nature and whether it represents a genuine feature or a digital artifact. The conversation explores the implications of data integrity in satellite imagery and the potential for misinterpretation in scientific research.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the nature of a structure in a moon photo, suggesting it could be significant due to its size.
  • Another participant argues that the structure is likely a glitch resulting from data processing errors, citing similar occurrences in satellite imagery.
  • Some participants discuss the vertical lines in the image, suggesting they are artifacts from the image stitching process rather than true features.
  • Concerns are raised about the reliability of satellite data and whether scientists can trust the images for research purposes, with one participant emphasizing the need for documentation of data quality.
  • Several participants express skepticism about conspiracy theories regarding NASA suppressing higher resolution images, labeling such claims as contradictory or unfounded.
  • One participant mentions that the image may have used lower resolution data to fill gaps, suggesting a common practice in satellite imagery.
  • Another participant expresses a desire to see more detailed images of the same area to verify the presence of the alleged glitch.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of the structure in the image. While some argue it is a glitch, others remain skeptical and question the integrity of the data used in scientific research.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the potential for data corruption and the implications of using lower resolution images to fill gaps in satellite data. There is also mention of the historical context of data collection from past missions, raising questions about data availability and transparency.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying satellite imagery, data integrity in scientific research, or the implications of digital artifacts in astronomical observations.

ocpaul20
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
I am sure you have your fair share of nutters on this forum, and you can pass me off as this if you choose to. However, this is a perfectly reasonable question to people who might know - I have been wondering about this structure on the moon, shown in an official Clementine Mission photo.

http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/cgi-bin/clementine/clib/multires.pl?clickres=5&ox=0&oy=0&res=0&size=768&latitude=-2&longitude=311&submit=Use+Lat%252FLong&%20sensor=UVVIS&filter=415_nm"

Can anyone shed some light on what it might be please?
As you can see, at 1pixel=1Kilometre it must be a massive structure, kilometres wide and long. The only explanation I have had is that it must be an anomoly on the digital image, but it seems too detailed for that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
It's a glitch - just the same as the vertical lines all across the image.
Probably where there is either a data drop out or an error registering several images together - if the error is in the digital process then of course it's detailed.
 
That is a pretty hefty glitch then.

As I understood it, the vertical lines are not 'glitches' at all but are where the satellite takes pictures in 'strips' of moon as it moves over the surface. These strips are then stuck together to make up a reasonable-sized image. Isn't that correct then? Nothing is detailed for this Lat & Long. as far as I could see.

Can you give me other examples of 'glitches' so that I can satisfy myself that this is what it is, because I would like to put my mind at rest about this one.
 
The vertical lines are glithces in that they are obvious errors in the orthographic correction / image matching algorithms.
The square path is either a block of bad data, or data where the signal to noise was poor because of somee fault.
It has sharp edges because that corresponds to either a numbe ro image frames or data blocks in the transmission process.
If you use the detail view it says that block is unavailabl so it may be that the data is missing but whetver they use to generate the low res web image is averaging over missing dat to produce the artifact.

If you use google Earth you will see lots of strange shaped areas with no data due to data drop outs or streaks following bright spots where a camera was saturated.
 
Another clue it's a glitch- the rectangle is perfectly aligned with the map axes.

mgb is right- Google Earth contains a ton of glitches like this.
 
OK, you have nearly convinced me that this is the answer, but I thought bad data was supposed to be documented so that scientists could accurately study features on the surface. Scientists write peer-reviewed papers which enhance their careers and get published to New Scientist etc from these photographs, they need to know that what they are looking at is really on the ground and is where they think it is. Can you imagine the ridicule they would get if the research they just published was based on 'glitches'? No-one would do it for fear that NASA had forgotten to document the glitch.

Worldwide there are tens of thousands of scientists using this data. If scientists cannot be sure of accurate data then the whole 'research' thing falls apart. Google Earth is not used for research purposes, and I bet that the Agencies do not put up with satellite intelligence that contains glitches. I suppose it might have accounted for the bad bombing raids on Saddam Hussein though!

If I were a conspiracy theorists, I would probably say that the hires images are not available because NASA did not want to show too much detail.
 
Last edited:
ocpaul20 said:
If I were a conspiracy theorists, I would probably say that the hires images are not available because NASA did not want to show too much detail.
It's a good thing, then, that you aren't a conspiracy theorist...
 
Yes- this thread is getting boring.

The onus is not on us to prove to you beyond all doubt that a blocky splodge on a pic of the moon is not in fact a hyper-advanced alien artifact or somesuch.
 
ocpaul20 said:
OK, you have nearly convinced me that this is the answer, but I thought bad data was supposed to be documented so that scientists could accurately study features on the surface. Scientists write peer-reviewed papers which enhance their careers and get published to New Scientist etc from these photographs, they need to know that what they are looking at is really on the ground and is where they think it is. Can you imagine the ridicule they would get if the research they just published was based on 'glitches'? No-one would do it for fear that NASA had forgotten to document the glitch.

Worldwide there are tens of thousands of scientists using this data. If scientists cannot be sure of accurate data then the whole 'research' thing falls apart. Google Earth is not used for research purposes, and I bet that the Agencies do not put up with satellite intelligence that contains glitches. I suppose it might have accounted for the bad bombing raids on Saddam Hussein though!
Scientists are smart enough to recognize what they are seeing, so I'm not sure what your complaint is. Are you claiming that those scientists are too dumb to recognize an image artifact?
If I were a conspiracy theorists, I would probably say that the hires images are not available because NASA did not want to show too much detail.
The claim that NASA is suppressing higher resolution images because lower resolution images show alien structures is self-contradictory and, quite frankly, stupid.
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
The claim that NASA is suppressing higher resolution images because lower resolution images show alien structures is self-contradictory and, quite frankly, stupid.
Unless it's the film set on the moon they are going to use to fake the Mars landings...
 
  • #11
My understanding of the issue is that the image in that section of the photo series was corrupted data and an old map of lower resolution was used to fill in the gap. This photo is a colage of a surveyor grouping (several pictures used to make one). The same thing is done to a great extent on Google Earth where there are multiple sections of high and low res pics or regions next to each other. There are updated photo studies of that area of the moon within the lunar surveyor and prospector mission data that after a close inspection at pixel depth and in comparrison with the photo in question will show this difference in each of the resolutions and how the terrain would yeild that appearence at those dependent resolutions. My guess is that the original data set for that picture did indicate the loss of the portion of the series, but the real conspiracy here is why does all of the data that NASA collects eventually disappear? Where are the chart data from the Gemini and Apollo missions?
 
  • #12
There are updated photo studies of that area of the moon within the lunar surveyor and prospector mission data that after a close inspection at pixel depth and in comparrison with the photo in question will show this difference in each of the resolutions and how the terrain would yeild that appearence at those dependent resolutions.
Since I don't have the data of the surveyor and prospector missions, I cannot make any comment about it. However, from what you say above, it seems like you are saying that there are more detailed images of this area that do show this 'glitch' in more detail. Do the other photos of the same area taken at a different time show the same digital 'glitch' shown on this photo? If so, I would be really interested to see some examples. Of course, there are always sensitive issues that are (politically, financially, etc) expedient to keep from the public domain and anyone who denies this probably does not live in the real world. Personally, I don't really care if there is a conspiracy going on or not, but I would like to try and determine the real truth for myself by holding an open questioning frame of mind.

To comment that a thread is becoming boring is not only rude but pointless, since a boring thread dies its own natural death by no-one contributing opinions. If it makes you uncomfortable, then you really should ask yourself why you want to stop the thread. If it really is boring, then you do not need to say so. Just don't add to it.
 
  • #13
ocpaul20 said:
I would be really interested to see some examples. Of course, there are always sensitive issues that are (politically, financially, etc) expedient to keep from the public domain and anyone who denies this probably does not live in the real world. Personally, I don't really care if there is a conspiracy going on or not, but I would like to try and determine the real truth for myself by holding an open questioning frame of mind.
We don't care either. Truth be told, though, you are not holding and "open and quesioning mind". If you were, you wouldn't be asking these questions. You are clearly holding on to a certain belief. And that belief is a line of discussion not worth entertaining here.

Thread locked.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Can anyone please tell me what are preons.
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Can someone please tell me what applied uses surds have in Science?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Can someone please explain to me what Performance Factor is?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K