It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Moon Squatters (Short Moon Anomaly Video)

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: trippy123

I downloaded it, tried it with NASAview and ISIS' pds2isis and both returned a garbled image. pds2isis returned an error and showed me that the image was only some 96% complete when it reported the error, so the image is unusable.




posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: trippy123

I downloaded it, tried it with NASAview and ISIS' pds2isis and both returned a garbled image. pds2isis returned an error and showed me that the image was only some 96% complete when it reported the error, so the image is unusable.


Thanks for trying.

I guess it's just coincidental NASA don't have this anomaly image at the LOIRP site or their home base site. Perhaps it's in the too hard department to airbrush out. There are more images missing I will show everyone in time. Thank God for Arizona University doing a great job holding and storing these important original LO images for (us and) NASA.

It's a shame the original finders of the McDonalds stored LO images handed them back to NASA to process instead of processing them themselves.

Bad management and archiving of the most important historical records probably should not be left in charge of a sloppy (intentional or not) government agency. Let's hope that the new generation of NASA staff have more efficient and honest intent.



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 12:36 AM
link   
um looks like the LOIRP site:

catalog.archives.gov... (LUNAR ORBITER 4 images)

has gone offline? Anyone able to grab any images today?
edit on 3-4-2019 by trippy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: trippy123
Bad management and archiving of the most important historical records probably should not be left in charge of a sloppy (intentional or not) government agency. Let's hope that the new generation of NASA staff have more efficient and honest intent.

After working with archives for almost 25 years I can tell you that doesn't surprise me, in most cases the organisation's leaderships do not even remember that the information they work with should be preserved, they see it just as something they can use at the moment for specific goals and forget about the future.

They see archives as dead things, full of old documents that nobody is interested in, instead of being a repository of an organisation's history and its work.



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

That would be a shame considering the taxpayer fits the bill.


I think it's a little strange that most of the LOIRP images have gone offline in the last day.... how could you explain that?



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: trippy123
That would be a shame considering the taxpayer fits the bill.

I have also seen that happen on private companies, most people do not remember that what looks like normal data today may be important in the future as a historic document.


I think it's a little strange that most of the LOIRP images have gone offline in the last day.... how could you explain that?

Without knowing how their system works I cannot really explain that situation.



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: trippy123

I downloaded it, tried it with NASAview and ISIS' pds2isis and both returned a garbled image. pds2isis returned an error and showed me that the image was only some 96% complete when it reported the error, so the image is unusable.


I got a reply from the PDS site confirming that there is an issue with that image, but they simply hosted the file as supplied by the original LOIRP team.

Is it possible to work out what the actual dimensions are so that you could re-write the .lbl file?



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: trippy123
a reply to: ArMaP

That would be a shame considering the taxpayer fits the bill.


I think it's a little strange that most of the LOIRP images have gone offline in the last day.... how could you explain that?


**** happens.

The PDS site with the IMG format images and also the original scans at the LPI are always around, and the moonviews website still has lots of the images on its pages.

Or you could just buy the book



I picked one up pretty cheap from eBay.



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

NASA does indeed happen...

again and again and again - over and over - time after time.

..and mate you cannot deny this particular image is missing (as are others) of past anomalies find.

...oh just for NASAs & giggles here's just what I have on hand - the other 20 or so are still in the garage:



*more to come



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Is it possible to work out what the actual dimensions are so that you could re-write the .lbl file?

Maybe, but I don't have the time to try it.



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

Well seemed my ISP has barred me from downloading/opening any of that site's NASA images.

Ho hum VPN works though - bit odd all this. I'd love to see the 500mb+ versions though for sure.

I know some think only the *new* counts and this *old* stuff should be left in the garage with the 1970's record players - but did you ever listen to the quality and rawness and beauty and purity of vinyl compared to even today's FLAC LOSSLESS - I still know the difference - and that is why people today are listening to vinyl. Same goes for Moon photos.

I know I'll never see those images - and that's a shame, because to me it's just more proof of NASA's shenanigans! Anyway next LO video in the works...



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: trippy123

I can deny it's missing because it isn't. The LOIRP wasn't anything to do with NASA, and the guy in charge of it isn't difficult to get hold of - ask him about his 'shenanigans'. The original scans are there, and you also have the books (I'd ditch the ULO one). There are also all the other photos taken orbit, many of them nothing to do with NASA. You'll find no contradictions in any of them.

You don't have proof that NASA is up to anything. You have a belief that colours your interpretation, just like colouring in moon photos convinced people something is there when it isn't. The moon is fascinating enough, it doesn't need fairy stories to improve it.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

www.moonviews.com...


Note: This website (moonviews.com) has not been regularly updated since 2014. Now that the project’s data has been submitted to NASA, this website will no longer be updated but will be maintained as an online archive of the LOIRP’s prior activities. Thank you for your interest in – and support of – our project.



PAGE 12 of the LO 3 image site : catalog.archives.gov... is where you will not find the image in question, why is that?
Lunar Orbiter 3 - FRAME 3130-H2 is missing from the site - as stated numerous times by me and shown clearly in the video - now you may not believe this, but you are wrong. If you can show me that actual image on the that would back up your claim (which is wrong).

Also providing me of the JPL site which hosted the file @500+mb.IMG (presumably - because no one can open it - why?) was great but as you and Armap both stated is corrupt and "has issues" - your own proof backs up my claim that it's very convenient this image cannot be seen in higher better quality.

The best quality of this image is still from Arizona SU where it still exists at this moment in time.

You show me one NASA publication you own (well I don't know that for sure because you have shown me a photo which anyone could just download off google images) and "buy" which along with many other official NASA publications I own and have owned since 2007. I guess mine was bigger than yours in that department


You seem very argumentative and angry at these simple facts. Can I ask who exactly you work for and your qualifications because you seem very protective of NASA and it's shenanigans?

I know feeding trolls is silly - but I have some time to kill.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: trippy123

What a stupid video. Random images that add up to nothing.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: trippy123




You seem very argumentative and angry at these simple facts. Can I ask who exactly you work for and your qualifications because you seem very protective of NASA and it's shenanigans?


You seem to be very argumentative and angry about NASA. Can I ask for the same information about you because you seem to be very critical of NASA, please?



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: trippy123
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

www.moonviews.com...


Note: This website (moonviews.com) has not been regularly updated since 2014. Now that the project’s data has been submitted to NASA, this website will no longer be updated but will be maintained as an online archive of the LOIRP’s prior activities. Thank you for your interest in – and support of – our project.



PAGE 12 of the LO 3 image site : catalog.archives.gov... is where you will not find the image in question, why is that?
Lunar Orbiter 3 - FRAME 3130-H2 is missing from the site - as stated numerous times by me and shown clearly in the video - now you may not believe this, but you are wrong. If you can show me that actual image on the that would back up your claim (which is wrong).


I said the image was available, it clearly is as it was used in the video. I never claimed it was available at the catalog.archive site.



Also providing me of the JPL site which hosted the file @500+mb.IMG (presumably - because no one can open it - why?) was great but as you and Armap both stated is corrupt and "has issues" - your own proof backs up my claim that it's very convenient this image cannot be seen in higher better quality.


I provided the link as a general site to look at, I hadn't yet downloaded the image. By and large there is not that massive a difference between the original scans and the LOIRP ones. You already have a good copy. Your claim that it is 'convenient' does not prove it has been hidden deliberately.




The best quality of this image is still from Arizona SU where it still exists at this moment in time.


Agreed. So?



You show me one NASA publication you own (well I don't know that for sure because you have shown me a photo which anyone could just download off google images) and "buy" which along with many other official NASA publications I own and have owned since 2007. I guess mine was bigger than yours in that department



I do own a copy of that book, and many more besides. I never claimed that image was a photo of it. Moot point: You already have them a d know what's in them.



You seem very argumentative and angry at these simple facts. Can I ask who exactly you work for and your qualifications because you seem very protective of NASA and it's shenanigans?


And yet here You are arguing and accusing me of trolling and being suspicious of my motives. What I'm doing is denying ignorance. I have seen much suspicion and accusation from you, little in the way of facts. Who I actually work for has got absolutely nothing to do with you.

[Quote]
I know feeding trolls is silly - but I have some time to kill.

Get a job.
edit on 4/4/2019 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ManyMasks

Ah, but you can see the other side! And you should be able to zoom in to the 50-meter scale. The resolution there is down to somewhere around two meters.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

nice try at a diversion
have a good one champ!

Next video almost done...


edit on 4-4-2019 by trippy123 because: next video almost done...



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Is it possible to work out what the actual dimensions are so that you could re-write the .lbl file?

Now that I had the time I can confirm that it's possible, as I just did it.


Knowing that those IMG files are simple files, without channels, we just have to look at the file size (589,050,000 bytes), divide by 2 (it's a 16 bits per pixel image, according to the LBL file), and then divide by the height (16500). That gives us 17850, so I just put that value on the LBL file (on the FILE_RECORDS and on the LINE_SAMPLES fields), and image can be seen.



The above image is resized to 5% of the original size. You can download an original size version here.
Even as a JPG it's a 159 MB image.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

That's great work. I'll reply to the PDS and see if they want to modify their lbl file.







 
21
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join