originally posted by: lunarrover
a reply to: ArMaP
One thing is NASA use Photoshop, there is inconsistency between the way images look between all the different orgs that hold images is obvious.
Layovers were used in the early days but now things have developed in terms of technology they use computers.
NASA did not use Photoshop when the photographs were taken. NASA did not use Photoshop until well after 1990, nobody did. The fact is that Photoshop
is the industry standard for preparing images for the web and publication. It does not mean that anything has been added or removed. Lots of people
use Photoshop. All the images I have posted in this thread have been through Photoshop. It does not prove that they have been faked, it's just another
empty claim from you. For once I agree with you, there is a great deal of inconsistency between websites in how they present the information but that
depends on the aim of the site concerned. The LPI site you keep borrowing and then manipulating images from clearly states that their images are not
intended for detailed research and also hosts higher resolution versions of the photographs you keep messing with, higher resolution photographs you
choose not to use. They also state quite clearly how their images have been treated.
The ASU, on the other hand, is definitely aiming at serious research and hosts raw, unprocessed high quality TIFF images. They also detail how those
images have been treated. The Planetary Data System is another source of lunar imagery and holds large numbers of raw images from a number of sources
and again details how those images have been treated. The ASU hosts LRO images and again is quite clear on how those images are processed. Likewise
India, China and Japan all detail exactly how their images have been dealt with and allow access to large and unprocessed images.
You, on the other hand, want to stick with low resolution sources because it allows you to squint at them with your glasses of and see fairy
Earlier you said this:
It just looks too unnatural the way you have created it? It looks like cgi but 1970's becuase it looks too prestine and well err sort of fake. I
appreciate what you have done here but it looks like computer modelling from the 70's. Synthetic pathetic even. Sorry mate I don't think this is
I don't care what you think or believe. I care about what you can demonstrate to be true. If you can get the same images from the same sources and
treat them in the same way but show something different you are welcome to do so. Prove me wrong. So far you have claimed you can prove your case but
have made no effort whatsoever to do so.
You claim to be interested in high quality images but reject the high quality images out there in favour of poor quality ones. You whine about
brow-beating and bullying and say you will call people out for trying to con you, well that's exactly what I'm doing: calling you out because you're
trying to con people. You're trying to con people into thinking you have expertise and experience and you very obviously do not and that you can
identify artificial structures that just aren't there. Pointing out where you've got it wrong is not bullying. Bitching about bullying and inferring
that people are being "sent in" to try and suppress is just another form of deflection and gatekeeping.
One poster suggested that I may as well give up on this as it's a waste of time. I agree it's a waste of time trying to get you to acknowledge that
you've got it wrong, or to admit that you have no proof of any of your claims, or to get you post your sources and your methods, but there may be well
be people reading this thread who might fall for BS if it wasn't for people prepared to put the effort in to deny ignorance and stand up for honesty.
You can try and pull the wool over people's eyes all you like, but someone needs to point out where you're wrong and being deceptive.
You've posted a couple of photos and simply said "these are amazing". That's all you need to do. There is no need to try an fabricate nonsense to make
them any more amazing. Have some photographs of the area you picked on, first Apollo 15's Metric Mapping Camera from the 1.2 Gb raw TIFF image hosted
by the ASU:
and now two 3D views from Chang'e-2 constructed from a 2.2 Gb DEM file, and two 1 Gb images:
Where's the pipeline?
Don't bother with any kind of reply that simply says "gee it kinda looks funny" or "it must be fake". Do what you said you were going to do and prove
that they are not showing what I'm saying that they are.