Strange Area In Photograph

a reply to: lunarrover

LINK

You mean the frame that holds the negatives in place for the scan? You think that's the edge of a filter?

originally posted by: lunarrover
When the images were scanned the photo lab tech added a frosted pane over the scanner before placing the image on the scanner to obfuscate the detail, a bit like when Disney create cartoons they use a transparent layover with the character on.

Things don't work like that, and I know what I'm talking about, in the last two years I have been responsible for quality control of more than 600,000 scanned images, having scanned 28340 myself since July 2018.
Whenever there's something between the scanner's glass and the target, light from the scanner will be scattered in a different way (unless it's perfectly transparent, in which case it makes no difference), so the image gets an uniform diffuse look, and I have never seen anything like that on any image from space missions, either from NASA, ESA or any other agency.

originally posted by: lunarrover
They have all been manipulated.

Sorry but they have all been faked.

But the one you have was not?

a reply to: lunarrover

Nope. Wrong again. Care to have another go? I downloaded the raw images myself. The photo of a book is my photo of my book. The photo you presented is hideously overprocessed and low resolution.

When are you going to acknowledge that you got it utterly wrong when you posted a picture of Kies crater thinking it was Kiess crater?

a reply to: lunarrover

It's an excellent video, also shot by Apollo. There is no glass dome. You're seeing things.

originally posted by: hombero
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

It's the other way around. Some people see patterns or familiar features, due to pareidolia. To suggest that it's by default actually real anomalies on the moon and literally almost everyone else is not seeing things is asinine.

I.e. when the majority of people disagree with you, you're probably wrong.

Except you are forgetting how brainwashed you are when it comes to things within these kind of subjects. Not everyone WANTS to see anomalies on any other planetary body even if they were easier to notice. Also, "pareidolia" doesn't actually exist. Not even a little bit. If you see an elephant up in the clouds or a dragon, you are seeing them because the clouds have formed in such a way that they LOOK like those things, NOT because your brain does some funky voodoo and makes you see them.

Also, sometimes when a majority of people believe a certain way like UFO's are all explainable prosaic things, it means that peer pressure has won the argument for them. Can you even see when this happens? Same goes for ancient artifacts existing on the moon. This site being anonymous for the most part is a safe place to discuss these things, but you can still witness the social engineering does bleed over even here. (And boy does it ever bleed over on here-because of that peer pressure.)

a reply to: ArMaP

Haha. Nope that just isn't right. Overlaid frosted pane.

Its obvious.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Even in a minority of one the truth is still the truth.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I don't think brainwashed applies anymore. Some people could care less, some people are inquisitive yet cautious, and others are full on convinced. Thus human nature rules the case.

Personally, I see high contrast - out of focus, which makes everything in there wondrous, but may just as well be natural features. There is no striking geometry except a few lines and lots of circles.

The central uplifts in some craters take on very bizarre shapes, and that can cloud your otherwise solvent scenes.

I think everyone should just decide what they believe they are seeing, and that should be good enough for everyone.

a reply to: lunarrover

Just curious, how many images have you scanned in the last year? For how may years have you been working with digital images?

a reply to: ArMaP

Since at least 86. Too long.

a reply to: lunarrover

That's only half of what I asked you, could you give an answer to the other question?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Except you are forgetting how brainwashed you are when it comes to things within these kind of subjects. Not everyone WANTS to see anomalies on any other planetary body even if they were easier to notice.

For all the years I have been on ATS I have been trying to see what other people say they see on photos, sometimes I can, sometimes I can't, and it's not a question of not wanting to see them, as I want to see ones as much as I want to see the others, I just can't see some of them.

Also, using the "brainwashed" excuse is just that, using an excuse to dismiss someone else's opinion, as much as dismissing what people see as pareidolia.

Also, sometimes when a majority of people believe a certain way like UFO's are all explainable prosaic things, it means that peer pressure has won the argument for them.

If you read my posts over the years you can see that I'm not in that group.

a reply to: lunarrover
That ain't a strange area. That's just a picture of an close in antenna, with the background being out of focus and out of range, and in grayscale for some reason.

Here's another one. See if you can guess what it is.

originally posted by: lunarrover
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Even in a minority of one the truth is still the truth.

And if it's patently BS?

At the moment you're in a minority of one who thinks a poor quality photograph shows alien bases and that genuine high resolution images are fake on the basis that one crater you found doesn't look like a completely different crater with a similar name.

Very few people gave been working with digital images since 1986. You aren't one of them.

a reply to: ArMaP

Funnily enough I had a family member round from Canada who asked me for some pics and if I could scan them. Turned out I had 26 images to scan. So the answer is yes in the last month and none had the frosty masking cos you have to intentionally add that. what a mundane dead end job that would be, cant think of anything more dull.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

You can't possibly know what jobs I have done. I worked for a global news network who at that time were at the cutting edge of digital imaging which revolutionised the industry.

Plus looking thru the thread I am not in a minority of one in this case. Why the hostility?

Strange

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

I said artefacts and structures.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Well it is from where I am looking.

Its stranger than fiction bruv.....

a reply to: lunarrover

Installing satellite dishes for Sky TV doesn't count. I don't care what the company you claim to have worked for was doing, your belief that the high resolution images you've been given were created by putting a sheet of frosted glass over actual images and that by over-contrasting low resolution jpegs you can somehow fix that tells me that you know sweet fanny adams about digital imaging. Photoshop wasn't developed until 1987 and wasn't released to the public until 1990 so I am going to continue to call that as BS until you can demonstrate otherwise.

What I'm doing is not hostility, it's standing up for the truth and against transparent trolling. Truth is something you are not telling, and trolling is what you appear to be doing. You still, for example, haven't managed to acknowledge that earlier in this thread you implied that because this image:

files.abovetopsecret.com...

did not look like anywhere on the Apollo image you posted there was some sort of fakery going on, when in fact that crater is absolutely nowhere near the area in the Apollo image. Which is faked? The LRO one or the Apollo image you posted and claim does show stuff?

You thought Kiess crater was Kies crater despite the correct spelling being very clear in the image posted by another member (which, I'll remind everyone, you didn't even know where it was at the outset but all of a sudden you're an expert).

That's the level of research quality we're dealing with here: broad, sweeping and very generalised conclusions based on an inability to spell crater names in a search engine.