Supposedly a strange-looking thing has been spotted on the moon: UFO hunter claims to have found an 'alien antenna' on the surface | Daily Mail Online
My skeptical eye notices that its “shadow” doesn’t match the angle of the sun on the rest of the photo.
So far all I can find are woo sites, or more mainstream media quoting the woo sites. If it is not an extraordinarily tall and skinny prominence, then what is it?
My guess is a hair or speck of dust on the photograph, or possibly on the negative the photograph was made from.
The monolith from the movie “2001”?
You’ve already pointed out why it cannot be an actual object on the moon – the shadow is pointing in the wrong direction by almost 90 degrees. It doesn’t even look much like a vertical structure. The “bottom” seems to be curved in an odd way. It seems more plausible to interpret the whole thing, “object” plus “shadow” as a some kind of filament overlaid on the photo. Deliberate fraud is a possibility, if the original NASA photo hasn’t been identified. Otherwise, hard to say.
–Mark
What kind of people spend hours with a loupe looking for that sort of stuff?
No. The monolith was called TMA-1: “Tycho Magnetic Anomaly 1”, so named because it was discovered in or near the crater Tycho. The area in the image, where ever it is, is clearly not in the Tycho neighborhood. And anyway, the monolith was buried and had to be dug up (then reacting to sunlight, to send a signal that it was found).
Curiously, the other monolith was called TMA-2, even though it sat very, very many miles away from Tycho, on Iapetus (in the book).
It could be the shadow from some of the extra lighting the Apollo astronaut left behind when they were faking the Moon landings … had to make room for all the fake Moon rocks they brought back.
'Twas actually just a jest. 
I thought you meant this one.
The image is from Lunar Orbiter 1 launched in 1966 in preparation for the Apollo missions. The image in question is shown here - click on the “Print Resolution JPG” link near the bottom to get the full resolution image.
The image was transmitted from the satellite electronically. But this feature could still be lint or hair on the original printout. You can see other thin lines all over the image.
Both links point to the Wikipedia article … I followed your bread crumbs and found the image “Frame 1025”.
Didn’t Carl Sagan do exactly that?
ETA: not spikes of course, but studying images sent back from space
Jesus…the Daily Mail is worse than Weekly World News was. They just let Salawha spew his bullshit without really doing any fact-check other than an astronomer’s opinion.
No.
Contact was fiction
Understanding how the spacecraft operated, and how images were received and processed on the ground makes it obvious how artefact like the little spike could arise, and further just why it looks like it does, including it little shadow pointing the wrong way.
There was no digital imaging system here. Not even an analog electronic imaging system. The orbiter contained a film camera, a tiny film processing system, dryer, and a film scanner. Film was 70mm wide, and received images from an 80mm and a 610mm lens. Film was scanned by a flying spot, and the signal transmitted to Earth.
Next, on the ground, the scanned images were reconstructed onto film, and these long lengths of film used to create duplicates that were used to create the larger frames you see. The signal was also sent to videotape.
The images of the moon went through at least four optical steps where dust hair and other contamination could create artefacts. Some of these stages include illuminating the film image, and could easily create shadow like effects as well.
Haven’t more recent orbiters imaged the same site in better resolution?
The usual answer to that, as in the “Mars Face,” is that They nuked the site to destroy the evidence. That’s why high-resolution imagery only shows a jumble of rocks and small hills with a faint resemblance to a face instead of a mile-high detailed sculpture of a disturbingly human face.
Clearly, the Spike was knocked down, probably by secret tritium-mining harvesters. I suspect Matthew, myself.
The “shadow” could also be another portion of the hair or whatever it is, protruding from the surface of the film (or negative or re-scan or whatever) and out of focus.
I looked around the whole of the image in question and there are several other marks similar to this one in question … interesting that these extraneous marks seem better resolved than the lunar features … a fake feature in a fake image …
Yeah, I think this is actually more likely.
The number of times the images were transferred between filmstock is amazing.
The on ground received images were created as positives, so a next generation negative was created via contact print. Then these used to assemble larger sized images which were contact printed off the assembled negatives, and so on.
It would be interesting to discover whether the on-ground recorded image data exists. Probably difficult to recover now if it has net bee transcribed. It doesn’t seem to be listed anywhere.
