Originally posted by CygnificCopernicus Grid# E4

You've got to be kidding right? Does anyone else see ALL or EVEN ANY of these objects in this, or in the negative of this image? I certainly do not. Is there some other hi-res version you're looking at to arrive at all of your object conclusions?

From your image text, you see the following?

A Toilet? (ok I hope you were kidding by the smiley face, but I wonder)

Machine?

A wheel (x2)?

Entrance?

Pipes?

A cross?

Cranes?

I've viewed the image that you gave us, stared at it a long while, within your image AND the negative version of your image. I must say I would NOT make ANY of the conclusions that you've made on any of the so-called objects.

If one has an over-active imagination, there are MANY possible 'objects' that one could "make out" of the patterns of light and dark pixels that were presented in that image.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
For instance, SOMEONE could say that the following is a smiley face made by some intelligent race. That someone would not be me however
The IMAGINARY FACE is complete with hair, nose, eyes and CHIN?!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----

Original image cropped area:

The area cropped:

Enhanced image:

OMG it's a face, looks like some sort of a clown?!

There are about 1000 other objects, faces animals or whatever that I can imagine are present in the image as well. The problem is that the image is NOT OF A HIGH ENOUGH RESOLUTION to make ANY conclusions as to what is present, never mind making the conclusions that some are wheels, cranes, toilet bowls, smiling faces or whatever.

I do like the 3d resolutions you're doing, that work MAY be able to draw out some anomalous features. If one could gather data to make a topographical map of the region (copernicus), it could expose some anomalous topographical features, but for now the above Copernicus image objects reveal nothing except shades of gray pixels.



[edit on 30-5-2007 by greatlakes]

Originally posted by johnlear

How much longer until the hi-res?

Cygnific, let me say again that this effort of yours to put the Copernicus photos in 3D is absolutely brilliant. I see at least twice as much as did before. Many thanks for your effort it is greatly appreciated!

You are very welcome John.

It's only possible because you gave the originals to us. I was very surprised also by the amount of detail you see this way. Zorgon has all Hi-res now i think except Copernicus #5. NASA really did a lot of work on #5. And i'm trying to remove the 'mask' they used to hide some 'stuff' (not the black paint). There is a amazing amount of 'stuff' on that picture.

Do you have more pictures of Copernicus?




[edit on 30/5/2007 by Cygnific]

Originally posted by greatlakes

You've got to be kidding right? Does anyone else see ALL or EVEN ANY of these amazing objects in this, or in the negative of this image? I certainly do not. Is there some other hi-res version you're looking at to arrive at all of your object conclusions?

A Toilet? (ok I hope you were kidding by the smiley face, but I wonder)

If i was kidding i put a smillie after all my text. There is a cross if you use negative. And i would use it as toilet, not sure if it is one..

Also speaking about scale issues, just how big would the so-called WHEEL be in that image? About 400 feet diameter, larger?? I question this because if objects are found that are a CERTAIN SCALE, then it would logically follow that any other RELATED objects should ALSO be RELATIVELY sized. In this case, EXTREMELY LARGE, HUGE EVEN.

If a crane is found to be HUGE, then the processing plant for whatever the crane is craning should be relative to the size of the crane, and it should, logically in this case, be 'orders of magnitude' LARGER than the said crane. In addition, if a so-called power plant is imaged, it too should be orders of magnitude LARGER than the material processing equipment found, conveyor belts pipes etc. All of the support systems should be relatively SMALLER that the end result machinery.

Is your Copernicus data consistent with this?




[edit on 30-5-2007 by greatlakes]

Originally posted by greatlakes
Also speaking about scale issues, just how big would the so-called WHEEL be in that image?

You mean if the measurements issued out by NASA are true? So what is wrong, the wheels or the sizes NASA gave?



[edit on 30/5/2007 by Cygnific]

Upper right corner of Copernicus #5, This is 'airbrushed' but NASA. It is again in 3D.

Originally posted by Cygnific

You are very welcome John. It's only possible because you gave the originals to us. I was very surprised also by the amount of detail you see this way. Zorgon has all Hi-res now i think except Copernicus #5. NASA really did a lot of work on #5. And i'm trying to remove the 'mask' they used to hide some 'stuff' (not the black paint). There is a amazing amount of 'stuff' on that picture.

Do you have more pictures of Copernicus?

Yes, Copernicus 5 had a lot of work done to it but what that did is confirm to us what areas NASA was trying to hide. The people that were airbrushing and otherwise tampering with Copernicus 5 probably didn't realize that it was a photo taken directly overhead of Copernicus 1, 2, 3, and 4. So the result was that little details they left unairbrushed because they thought them too insignificant would confirm what is seen in the oblique view.

For instance they knew that the 'parking garge' was highly incriminating so they eliminated that from #5. But some of the cranes they didn't. One of the cranes became the original 'smoking gun' which, seen in Copernicus #1 was confirmed in Copernicus #5.

What NASA couldn't have foreseen when they started airbrushing these photos (1967) was that in 40 years image processing programs would be available for only a few dollars that would expose their frauduent manipulation of the Lunar Orbiter photos.

Where is the airbrushing?

Also, is this a 'T' anomaly or a 'FACE' anomaly? How does this interpret in the other Copernicus images?




Many things can be interpreted as being anomalous objects, but are they intelligently designed or tricks of shadow and light?

The parking garage is one of the one that is most interesting however.

[edit on 30-5-2007 by greatlakes]

Originally posted by greatlakes
Where is the airbrushing?

Also, is this a 'T' anomaly or a 'FACE' anomaly? How does this interpret in the other Copernicus images?

Load it in a paint program and zoom in, and use 3D glasses. Then you will see the black paint didn't take all spots that show something. Do you have 3D glasses?

[edit on 30/5/2007 by Cygnific]

Originally posted by Cygnific Do you have 3D glasses?

[edit on 30/5/2007 by Cygnific]

Yea but there a cheapie pair paper and plastic job. I'll have to dig them out. I think they are red and green...

Originally posted by greatlakes

Originally posted by Cygnific Do you have 3D glasses?

[edit on 30/5/2007 by Cygnific]

Yea but there a cheapie pair paper and plastic job. I'll have to dig them out. I think they are red and green...

Pay attention to the black layer that floats above the picture when you have the 3D glasses then. This is added "AFTER" the picture was taken.

Originally posted by johnlear

The people that were airbrushing and otherwise tampering with Copernicus 5 probably didn't realize that it was a photo taken directly overhead of Copernicus 1, 2, 3, and 4. So the result was that little details they left unairbrushed because they thought them too insignificant would confirm what is seen in the oblique view.

For instance they knew that the 'parking garge' was highly incriminating so they eliminated that from #5. But some of the cranes they didn't. One of the cranes became the original 'smoking gun' which, seen in Copernicus #1 was confirmed in Copernicus #5.

Yes, it was not smart to do that, and just paint what you want without checking the older version.. To bad this is not in the mainstream news, you can proof for 100% that NASA is tempering with pictures and not to make a picture nicer but remove things.

Originally posted by Cygnific
Load it in a paint program and zoom in, and use 3D glasses. Then you will see the black paint didn't take all spots that show something. Do you have 3D glasses?

I doubt that there is anything we could show that would convince greatlakes...

I will check my email now for those hi res, but I won't be able to upload them till this evening as I have a contract for 1pm today

uh where are my copies of coper 3d? : /

you guys left me outta loop!

well zorgon offered to send them to me i think but if he did, they didn't make it through my email.. someone needs to upload them and send me linkage.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Cygnific
Load it in a paint program and zoom in, and use 3D glasses. Then you will see the black paint didn't take all spots that show something. Do you have 3D glasses?

I doubt that there is anything we could show that would convince greatlakes...

I will check my email now for those hi res, but I won't be able to upload them till this evening as I have a contract for 1pm today

Sorry to burst your bubble but I doubt there is anything you could show myself and a lot of other people here that will convince us. Simply because they dont speak up and say so doesnt mean they arent laughing.

Many, if not most of Mr Lears idea's are, at best laughable. Nice pics but the explanations..................?
Theres another thread somewhere about Mr Lear and Disinformation

greatlakes,

now see? if you woulda just taken my post seriously about reading the thread and the links, you'd have saved yourself and the rest of the fine people on this thread, the trouble of having to relink, re-read, re-type the data regarding things like scale.

[edit on 30-5-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by realyweely...Simply because they dont speak up and say so doesnt mean they arent laughing.

Well, I am glad to see someone is getting mileage out of our work. And I suppose they have been there and know?

While we are talking structures, at least the fuzzy ones, what about the vast structures made by nature that we cannot see? How about them lava tubes that can be up to 10 km or more in diameter? Sounds like a perfect place for massive activity! And much easier to develop too!

I'll skip patronizing anyone here with a list of all the "kooks" that ultimately furthered the range of knowledge for mankind and just say we haven't even scratched the surface yet.