Strange Area In Photograph

a reply to: lunarrover

The only thing you are sticking is your foot in your mouth.

There aren't any Clementine images of the equivalent resolution of the JAXA/CNSA/LRO/ISRO images, or even the Apollo metric mapping camera ones. I own a hard copy of the Clementine atlas of the moon, I know what they show.

Evidence? Support for your arguments? Any time soon? Anyone who has seen the images I've posted and linked to can see exactly how well they compare with the image you posted.

To reiterate my position, high resolution is not high definition. It is misleading people.

That's why you keep trying to use it as a mechanism to derail the truth.

These 2 images show a myriad of anomalies.






You could spend weeks here finding structures.

Here's a technique I find useful when trying to compare oblique images with ones taken vertically. You effectively take the oblique image and stretch it. On the right is the vertical view from Kaguya. In the centre is the same crater stretched to approximate the vertical view from the OP image. On the left is the same crater from the ASU scan of the same crater treated in the same way.

Where are the pipes and shepherd's crooks? Where are the differences between them? Are we to believe that the Japanese image is not a true representation of reality?

Here's what happens if you drape that same OP image of Japan's DEM data:

Despite its much lower resolution you can still compare it with the JAXA version:

No pipes, no artificial objects, no logical and sensible argument from the OP to contradict the data other than to try and gatekeep the debate and armwave it away.

a reply to: lunarrover

No, what I am doing is posting better quality images than yours and proving your claims to be nonsense. Sorry it that's inconvenient for you. The only mechanism being employed is that of actually being bothered to collect the necessary data and do your job for you. You are putting zero effort into this and expecting the world to fall at your feet - it's just not going to happen on the basis of anything you're posting.

a reply to: lunarrover

You could spend weeks finding what you think are structures, but that doesn't mean that there are actually any there. You'd be better off buying a telescope.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Is that right? Wrong. I have got a telescope, with Earths atmosphere etc you wont see much unless you spend quite a lot of money even then you will never see anything like Nastronorts boot prints. Who is that guy? Don something? cant remember?

The image I posted of the Laccel Massif is 400 meters per pixel. As an interesting aside the decent stages of the LEM's were roughly 4 meters wide, you do the math?

JAXA images from Kaguya are CGI in the most part, telemetry data was used and then images were mapped to that. Same tricks you use when you try to discredit, Hi Res Lo Def Nothing to see here lies. I used a nice plugin in vegas pro Neat Video that replicated the smoothness of the Jaxa vids in a test I did and it still looked like moon but it was fake moon.

We live in the age of Super HD yet those images they posted of the landing sites were ridiculously bad. 10 miles up low def crap on steroids, the sheep loved it.

Lassell C from the LRO image posted superimposed on the same topographic data from Kaguya, with the two compared:

Which one is the better image do we think?

Where are the artificial structures?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo


Where are the artificial structures?

Here they are.



So you can do a bit of texture mapping? and pixelate the hell out of images? So what? nice skill which is child's play. given the right tools anybody could do it, and that's about it.

originally posted by: lunarrover
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Is that right? Wrong. I have got a telescope, with Earths atmosphere etc you wont see much unless you spend quite a lot of money even then you will never see anything like Nastronorts boot prints. Who is that guy? Don something? cant remember?

Get a better scope. I already posted an amateur image that is an improvement on the one you posted.

The image I posted of the Laccel Massif is 400 meters per pixel. As an interesting aside the decent stages of the LEM's were roughly 4 meters wide, you do the math?

Read the page that has the Lassell Massif image on it, it tells you how the image was made:

www.lroc.asu.edu...

I've already quoted it to you. See if you can find out the difference between WAC and NAC images (hint: there are some NAC images on the same page of the same area).

JAXA images from Kaguya are CGI in the most part, telemetry data was used and then images were mapped to that.

For someone with such vast experience of digital imaging you seem to know very little about it. Do some reading:

www.kaguya.jaxa.jp...

Same tricks you use when you try to discredit, Hi Res Lo Def Nothing to see here lies.

Again with accusation that other people are lying. How many T&C breaches do you think you can manage? What I'm trying to discredit is your claim that there are artificial structures to be seen in low resolution low quality images, and I'm doing that by showing you high resolution high quality ones from a variety of sources. There are no lies and no tricks. You have the data sources, by all means try and show that the things I've produced are false. If you can't do that then I look forward to your abject apology.

I used a nice plugin in vegas pro Neat Video that replicated the smoothness of the Jaxa vids in a test I did and it still looked like moon but it was fake moon.

You need to stop thinking that the HDTV images are the highest definition images available from JAXA. I've given you the link, download them yourself and post your results. I've posted all the work I've done and all I get from you is "I tried this and it was bad but you'll just have to take my word for it". Seriously - that's all we get?

We live in the age of Super HD yet those images they posted of the landing sites were ridiculously bad. 10 miles up low def crap on steroids, the sheep loved it.

Again, I seriously doubt you've actually looked. Sheep? I'm not the one pulling the wool over people's eyes.

a reply to: lunarrover

I've done nothing but superimpose the same image you posted on topographic data. Nothing more, nothing less. Get over it. If it's child's play I look forward to your results.

Here's the QGIS data, just to prove that the LRO WAC image is correctly positioned on the JAXA view.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

I disagree with you 100%

In fact you are very disagreeable, you are trying to railroad me into believing what you are telling me?

Sorry OBMT, I just can't do that, it isn't your fault, it is their fault man. I'm sure you are an excellent human being but your behaviour on this thread has been appealing. You have used every trick in the book and it is not working, none of it is working.

Be told man, I aint avin any of it.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo


Check out the structures, yes the quality is a bit rough, even so it is undenyable.

gigapan.com...

youtu.be...

Going back to the OP imagine what being there is actually like?

originally posted by: lunarrover
They are not the originals they have all been tampered with to fool the sheep.

How do you know which ones are the originals?

originally posted by: lunarrover
To reiterate my position, high resolution is not high definition.

OK, post your definitions of "high resolution" and "high definition", so we all know what you are talking about.

a reply to: ArMaP

Really? They are as rare as chickens teeth and non exist in the public domain cos they have all been meddled with.

originally posted by: lunarrover
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

I disagree with you 100%

Really? You don't say.

In fact you are very disagreeable, you are trying to railroad me into believing what you are telling me?

We'll come back to this statement shortly, but the fact is that what I am doing is pointing out to you, and anyone tempted to believe your claims, that you are wrong. I don't care whether you believe me or not. What I care about is not having reality misrepresented, being called a shill, being called a liar, have you dictate to me when and what I can post, having my images doctored so that they appear to be lower quality than originally posted, and being accused of playing tricks on people. I'm not here to fluff your ego. If your poor snowflake soul can't deal with criticism then you need to find another way of spending your time.

Sorry OBMT, I just can't do that, it isn't your fault, it is their fault man.

Oh do me a favour and ram that patronising 'you poor sheeple have been hoodwinked' garbage where the sun don't shine. It assumes that you know more about this subject than I do, which you very obviously don't.

I'm sure you are an excellent human being but your behaviour on this thread has been appealing. You have used every trick in the book and it is not working, none of it is working.

I''ll take the typo as a typo. Again, get it through your skull: I have used no tricks. There is no magic or fakery to anything I have presented. You have been presented with facts. You have been presented with the means of deriving those facts for yourself. If you think there is something incorrect about the methods I have used, prove it. If you think there is something false about the raw images I have downloaded, prove it. You have consistently failed to back up any of your claims and simply telling me my images are wrong without also providing any evidence as to why just isn't good enough. Neither is presenting yet another image and going "Look, there is something there" and expecting everyone else to do your work for you. Point out where things are. Be specific.

Be told man, I aint avin any of it.

"Be told". That would be where you are trying to railroad me into believing you? Hypocrite.

a reply to: lunarrover

Sorry, but I don't understand your answer to my asking for definitions.