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.

 

John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

page: 166
164
<< 163  164  165    167  168  169 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone
If your evidence is as strong as you seem to believe, then you guys should have no trouble convincing these guys to let you use thier equipment.


Worth a shot... surely at the very least one could purchase time? Will have to find out what a private individual would need to pay to get images.

If its too much... I will come back here with my hands out




posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone
Or it could just be a reflection on the sun from all of the iron deposits on the moon.


Ummmm well according to Clementine and Lunar Prospector most of the iron on the Moon is in the form FeO, which is ferrous oxide, or iron oxide, more commonly know as RUST...

Now last time I checked RUST doesn't reflect to good...

There is a lot of Titanium, also as oxide, but that is naturally black... until refined then its bright "ejecta" white...

Now maybe Thorium might do the trick... I have no idea if the solar radiation is intense enough to excite thorium to the point of glowing.

Phosphor I have seen glow in dull greens and ivory tones, never very bright, and I have yet to see blue or gold, but who knows maybe the radiation levels are high enough to make it do something else on the moon



posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
As a matter of fact YOU KNOW I have a better (higher resolution) copy from NASA of “Copernicus 1-4” (II-162) than what John posted here on ATS and you’ve known about this since last year! I even emailed you (at your request!) sections from my copy of the so-called “anomalies” you were interested in like the “keep”.


Actually I do not agree your version is as high a resolution. And several comparison clips showed me certain anomalies were missing in your copy. I will be more that happy to pull them up for comparison when I return to "full duty"


Of course you COULD post the image to show everyone




Hell, I even posted some more pictures of Copernicus (V-150 to V-157) and you STILL complain about not having any high-resolution pictures as if NASA is involved in some ridiculously huge cover-up!


According to USGS..
The full LO dataset consists of 967 medium resolution (MR) and 983 high resolution (HR) frames.

Yet the defense contractor states 1600 were taken, and I see nothing at the USGS site including the "hi res scans" that can show me images as small as a card table. Their highest res of LO-II-162 is not even close to John's copy, however I will place an order for their highest res version of 162 and see what I get...




Did you know that when this picture (II-162) was taken in 1966 it was hailed as the “Picture of the Century” at the time and was featured in newspapers and magazines all over the world? Yeah, some BIG SECRET this was…


Yup I knew that, and you have pointed it out many times... but there isn't one newspaper or magazine image out there that would have been clear enough to have shown anyone any anomalies, nor would anyone have even been looking for them back then.



Don’t you think it’s about time to give it up Zorgon and admit you’ve been hoaxed by John Lear?


It might interest you to know that many of the anomalies I posted during the course of this thread, John had never seen before, and there are many participating in this thread who have spotted their own anomalies and posted them.

And as far as I can tell EVERYTIME the original image sources have been shown so people can make up their own minds... As a matter of fact we have gone to a great deal of effort to provide sources and that USGS site we have posted MANY TIMES

Our other thread about Clementine also has all the USGS map-a-planet links (the source of those color images Undo uses for the "glowies"

Undo has painstakingly recorded all the NASA and USGS sites as well as copied all the images from obscure links that we found and has them posted for free access on her website. Pegasus also has an extensive list of official sources.

So what "contrary evidence" are you talking about? Your image? Well post it here and we will compare section by section.


Edit to Add...

As I recall you couldn't post your image here before. And you never sent me a copy, only a couple small clips... and you decided not to post it yourself...

I also had this website before....

The "Picture of the Century"
The infamous Lunar Orbiter II photograph of Copernicus crater on the Moon taken in 1966. There is one 29 meg high res jpg version, but we all know how good jpgs are for anomalie hunting


Now I wonder why Tom would state it was "infamous"


neverworld.net...

And as to me quiting... I'm just getting warmed up




[edit on 12-6-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxxsuffice it to say that the supporters of the thread's premise think of me most likely as a complete idiot,


Oh come on now, don't be so hard on yourself... after all those nice emails we shared...


As to the image... I see judging by the responses that it is not "clear". However looking at Kleverone's answer, I do know that the "object in question" is clearly visible... its only the imterpretation of what it is that is in doubt



posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
Sorry, acesss denied.
(long story but I have my reasons and that's all I'm going to say about it)

Anyway, here's a cropped 9.8 MB JPEG version ("lo2_h162_3a") Happy hunting!


Thanks for the this picture. Tobad you dont want/can't release the others. Can you tell where you got the 'access denied' pictures from?



posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Greatlakes, I did not catch your previous post. Thank you so much for that nice perspective, it is exactly what I am looking for, and where we all should be.

A/D, I sense you are changing your tune. I don't know if that is good or bad, and it really doesn't matter to me, but you may want to reexamine your motives before other members catch on. You have a sharp mind and are capable of valuable contributions, so I really would like to see you hop on board.


In large organizations I have found that in most cases individuals possess a different moral set than the organization itself, as if it has a life of its own. Policy can drown out the most well meaning people.



posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cygnific
Thanks for the this picture. Tobad you dont want/can't release the others. Can you tell where you got the 'access denied' pictures from?

Hi Cygnific, you're welcome. I requested it from NASA NSSDC. The image I posted should be good enough to show any critical thinkers in the audience who might still be on the fence that there’s nothing “special” about John’s copy and since I’ve learned it’s useless to try and reason with “true believers” I don’t see any point in posting the original. I could be wrong but I don’t think there’s anybody here who hasn’t made their mind up already about these claims but if there’s anybody out there who’s truly interested in collaborating with me and doing a thorough unbiased comparison send me a U2U and I might reconsider. I really don’t have the time or patience to do it myself all over again so I hope you understand.

AD

[edit to add visual translation]



P.S. Just in case there's any doubt compare for yourself these unaltered clips from my copy of the image to the same areas in John's using the pictures posted at the beginning of this thread as your source. DO NOT use Zorgon's enlarged and colorized versions! Notice any differences?

"parking garage"


"crane" (aka "The Smoking Gun")


another "crane"


and finally, my favorite "peekaboo"



[edit on 13-6-2007 by Access Denied]



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Now most of you here know me to be pretty calm... but once in a while even I "getz me dander up" So for the sensitive please skip this post...



Originally posted by Access Denied I requested it from NASA NSSDC.


Okay no more mister nice guy. I do not know what your game plan is here... but personally I have had just about enough of it... A few posts back you called me out to post the images that you TOLD EVERYONE on the thread I had, and accused me of withholding that "evidence"

I quote...



As a matter of fact YOU KNOW I have a better (higher resolution) copy from NASA of “Copernicus 1-4” (II-162) than what John posted here on ATS and you’ve known about this since last year! I even emailed you (at your request!) sections from my copy of the so-called “anomalies” you were interested in like the “keep”. Why haven’t you told anybody here about that


You further went on to state...


Did you miss that or did you just decide to ignore another inconvenient truth?

Now, want to know what I think is even more hysterical about “John Lear’s Moon Pictures on ATS”? Did you know that when this picture (II-162) was taken in 1966 it was hailed as the “Picture of the Century” at the time and was featured in newspapers and magazines all over the world? Yeah, some BIG SECRET this was…


You then in a very unfriendly manner suggested I give it up and admit I have been conned by John Lear...

Then when I posted THIS comment in direct answer to the challenge YOU brought up...


by Zorgon I also had this website before....

The "Picture of the Century"
The infamous Lunar Orbiter II photograph of Copernicus crater on the Moon taken in 1966. There is one 29 meg high res jpg version, but we all know how good jpgs are for anomalie hunting

Now I wonder why Tom would state it was "infamous"

neverworld.net...


You send me a U2U and ask me to remove your personal website...

Okay FIRST OF ALL I found that website originally by myself on the web by doing a google search for LO-II-162... and quite frankly until you wrote me this U2U I was not sure it was your site, though I suspected it was....

You know that very well as here is a quote from the letter...

"So how did you find my page? It was featured recently
on a major network news site just in time for the 40th
anniversary of the image."


So why do I need to ask a mod to remove a link from my post to a website that was featured on a major network? And that is (was)easily found by a google search?

Now I have noticed that you have since quickly removed the page, and I am sure very few in here (as is normal) even clicked on that link much less downloaded the images... but your reaction and quick removal of the site tells me you have something to hide...

I guess it was fortunate then that I have all those images on file since I first found your website a year ago, when you asked for my help to get you reinstated here at ATS for being a bad boy.

And then you post us an 9 meg JPEG version which we all know is not comparable to a lossless gif or bitmap version to compare.As a matter of fact iit is so pixelated as to be useless... If you are offering THAT as a comparison, you are either a fool, or you have an agenda.

So according to your demand in the previous posts "Why haven’t you told anybody here about that"... I see no other alternative than to post them and share them with everyone, and do a proper comparrison

Your email also hinted that you "might" have something to do with propulsion research. I have no way of knowing if this is true or not, but if so It "might" iindict why you have an agenda to put this thread down...

Oh and the very first thing I did notice looking at the image you posted compared to Johns version... the left hand side on yours is missing about an inch or so... conveniently leaving off two of our best anomalies

This one...



and this one...


So you asked me why I didn't post them before? Because they were tampered with... but now I will take the time and do a comparison with the 32 meg one you had on your site and Johns... It will take a while, but seems like a worthwhile project now, especially since it is from NASA at a later date. This may even be "proof positive" that they 'doctored" later copies


And as to me quiting... You have just reaffirmed my resolve...

As I said, I am just warming up



This has been a good day...

it has seen two NASA scientists recant a paper on the absolute proof of "puddles" of water found on Mars


The report identifies specific spots that appear to have contained liquid water two years ago, when Opportunity was exploring a crater called Endurance. It is a highly controversial claim, as many scientists believe that liquid water cannot exist on the surface of Mars today because of the planet’s thin atmosphere.

If confirmed, the existence of such ponds would significantly boost the odds that living organisms could survive on or near the surface of Mars, says physicist Ron Levin, the report's lead author, who works in advanced image processing at the aerospace company Lockheed Martin in Arizona.

Along with fellow Lockheed engineer Daniel Lyddy, Levin used images from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's website.


Image experts from Lockheed....


Today there is this added to the paper...


Update: The researchers have retracted their claim about the possibility of standing water on Mars after readers pointed out the terrain lies on the sloped wall of a crater –


I wonder if any of those "readers" were from ATS


SOURCE New Scientist


So either these to eminent scientists made a BIG mistake...

Or someone gave them a reason to change their story...

Either way.... NASA at its finest




[edit on 13-6-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Now I wonder why Tom would state it was "infamous"

neverworld.net...
You send me a U2U and ask me to remove your personal website...

Okay FIRST OF ALL I found that website originally by myself on the web by doing a google search for LO-II-162... and quite frankly until you wrote me this U2U I was not sure it was your site, though I suspected it was


Hey that website link is "no mas", I think I'm missing the backstory here...

This link is the google cache of that page...
link
I could not find any high res (LO) lunar images using google, the ones that are on that website...LO-II-162...etc...

[edit on 6/13/2007 by greatlakes]



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Your email also hinted that you "might" have something to do with propulsion research.


Naww...havn't seen him in my neck of the woods TMK

Can't say much else because I don't know much else about him. But maybe that is a good thing....



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zorgon
Actually I do not agree your version is as high a resolution.

That’s funny that’s not what you said in your emails…

”So it does seem your picture is a larger scan.... personally looks about the same resolution though as mine, but possibly a little better.” and "Yes I will admit yours has better resolution its bigger... Yes I will admit yours comes from a different negative [I compared certain scratches on the little section I had from you]"


Originally posted by Zorgon
The full LO dataset consists of 967 medium resolution (MR) and 983 high resolution (HR) frames. Yet the defense contractor states 1600 were taken

Ron, please add 967 + 983 on your calculator and tell me what you get. Maybe something’s wrong with mine because I keep getting an answer of 1950 which is way more than 1600. BTW NASA’s figure according to the table below is 2160 MR and 882 HR so that probably just means not all of them were usable for the USGS’s purposes.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Originally posted by Zorgon
and I see nothing at the USGS site including the "hi res scans" that can show me images as small as a card table

Then you’re just not looking hard enough. HINT: What makes you think every image taken should have 1 meter resolution and that for any given area of interest a 1 meter resolution image should be available?


Originally posted by Zorgon
It might interest you to know that many of the anomalies I posted during the course of this thread, John had never seen before, and there are many participating in this thread who have spotted their own anomalies and posted them.

Why would I find that interesting? All that means to me is John’s not the only one who’s seeing stuff that isn’t there. I think it’s pretty safe to say he could have posted just about any random moon pic here and people would be spending hours pouring over it and finding all kinds of “interesting” stuff… never underestimate the power of suggestion!


Originally posted by Zorgon
So why do I need to ask a mod to remove a link from my post to a website that was featured on a major network?

Because it looks like you posted it to “expose” my identity here on ATS in a desperate attempt to try and avoid having to answer some tough questions. Like I said in my U2U that’s just NOT COOL but hey, suit yourself, your reputation here isn’t my responsibility.


Originally posted by Zorgon
your reaction and quick removal of the site tells me you have something to hide...

Really? That’s funny because it seems to be working fine now.


Originally posted by Zorgon
And then you post us an 9 meg JPEG version which we all know is not comparable to a lossless gif or bitmap version to compare.As a matter of fact iit is so pixelated as to be useless... If you are offering THAT as a comparison, you are either a fool, or you have an agenda.

LOL either that or you’re blind. Let’s do a little comparison to see how well this latest claim of yours holds up shall we? Here’s the “crane” again from my original….


Now here’s the “crane” from the 9.8 MB JPEG version I posted…

Now who’s the fool with an agenda? And just for fun here’s the “crane” from John’s picture…

Now you tell me who’s “crane” is bigger (LOL) and has higher resolution (even in compressed JPEG format!)?

What’s useless is trying to blow up a digital image, especially a JPEG, beyond it’s original (intended viewing) size. BTW I saved that JPEG using the YUV 4:4:4 (High Resolution) subsampling method with a compression factor of 5% IIRC but I realize that might be a little over your head judging by your performance here so far.


Originally posted by ZorgonYour email also hinted that you "might" have something to do with propulsion research. I have no way of knowing if this is true or not, but if so It "might" iindict why you have an agenda to put this thread down...

What hint was that? My email address propulsion.research@gmail.com or my MIB joke (“How do you know I’m not?”) you didn’t get?




Originally posted by Zorgon
So according to your demand in the previous posts "Why haven’t you told anybody here about that"... I see no other alternative than to post them and share them with everyone, and do a proper comparison

I see so now you’re going to steal my copy and use it without my permission or proper attribution? Maybe even use it in your “book”? Gee isn’t that special. Why am I not surprised?


Originally posted by Zorgon
Oh and the very first thing I did notice looking at the image you posted compared to Johns version... the left hand side on yours is missing about an inch or so... conveniently leaving off two of our best anomalies

I’m sorry, which part of “cropped” didn’t you understand? Lucky for you my full version covers a LOT more area than what little John posted here so maybe you’ll find even more “anomalies”. How cool is that? (you can thank me later)


Originally posted by Zorgon
I will take the time and do a comparison with the 32 meg one you had on your site and Johns... It will take a while, but seems like a worthwhile project now, especially since it is from NASA at a later date. This may even be "proof positive" that they 'doctored" later copies

Hmm … I thought you already had the smoking gun? Well good luck with that and let us know how that works out for you OK? BTW I hope you have a good computer because that 32 MB version is 190 MB when uncompressed and it’s slows most of my machines down to a crawl! Not exactly “quick look” material if you know what I mean.


Originally posted by Zorgon
And as to me quiting... You have just reaffirmed my resolve...

Well good, glad I could help. Try to have fun with it OK? I know I am.


Originally posted by Zorgon
As I said, I am just warming up

Yawn...

[/sarcasm]

AD



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Well thanks for the post A.D. and thanks for the link being back up, the images there are the ones I believe are being discussed and may be higher quality than John Lears images. It certainly seems that the above posting comparison that the JL image of the supposed *crane* is lacking resolution and detail as compared with zorgons and AD's, of which those two seem comparable, keeping in mind that AD's image is a compresed jpg and needs to be compared in an uncompressed format to format.

I dunno, is it possible that JL's images are scanned from a book or a smaller positive print, and expanded and not scanned from a negative with the highest resolution?

Also if at least the part of the above is true, that John Lears images are lower resolution than other available images, why were the anomalies pages based on these lower resolution JL images?

[edit on 6/13/2007 by greatlakes]



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by kleverone




John,when you say that Mr. Collins was talking about people actually below the surface, where you implying that he meant it literally or figuritively, or am I reading into that to much?





I never said Michael Collins was talking about anybody anywhere. All I did was post a quote from the New York Tmes book. The exact quote of the text from the book is, " He (Michael Collins) pointed out all the complex equipment involved, and cited the thousands of workers 'below the surface' who made the mission possible." The quotation marks enclosing 'below the surface' belong to the New York Times, not me.


When I first heard John Lear on a radio broadcast I didn't think much of it till I heard about another civilization living inside the planet. This got my attention, and then I came here(ATS) for more info witch just left me with more questions.


Hollow Earth

I had a dream when I was about 5-6 in summer 1975-76, I don't really remember how it started but I remember "holding hands of an elder man in white who took me up into space floating upwards, the sun seemed to be to my left and behind me and could see all the stars. Then a massive planet appeared in front of me, as though it was invisible the second before. It was a blackish color with what seemed to be cracks with red or lava flowing within. The man then took me inside the planet and revealed to me the interior of what seemed to be an earth like planet only inside out, with the sun in the center and the start with constellations and moons. I could see everything everywhere, likes land mass and what seemed to be cities on the other side of the planet, I felt like a was a giant to that planet, 1000's of feet tall(in a sense). Then we started to descend to the city below us". At witch point I then only remember being in a building looking out the window and admiring to my amazement the view I was witnessing and I seemed to be my normal size again, It would be impossible to explain. Then they sought my attention and "as I turned around to them" I awoke, I was cold and shivering and my bed and been soaking wet from shivering so much I was actually sweating. I change my pee-jays and got out a dry comfy from the linen closet and feel back to sleep on the floor next to my bed. It was still dark outside.

I never did pay much attention to that dream until I heard about other beings living in the earth, so I did allot of searching and hollow planet(s) have been recorded in our history for well over 5000 years. absolutely amazing!

thx for peeking my intrests.



posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
That’s funny that’s not what you said in your emails…


True I said those words... based on the clips you sent as you never released your "full version"

..it does seem your picture is a larger scan.... personally looks about the same resolution though as mine, but possibly a little better.”

And that was before I had the full bitmap ones from John...

You also forgot the next letter I sent you....


In that letter I compared a clip of yours to one on mine, sent by your friend Apass...

Here is the one from YOURS...



Here is the area from ours...



And along with that image set I said these words...

"So it does seem your picture is a larger scan.... personally looks about the same resolution though as mine, but possibly a little better. Its useless though as this has been clearly edited. It is possible for poorer resolution printings or scans to lose stuff... it is NOT possible for them to ADD stuff!!!"

"Though mine(clip) is smaller you can clearly see the ring like structures that are erased in your copy... "

"So there we have it... you can thank your friend Apass for that little helper... Maybe you are MIB after all trying to undermine the mine..."

"Sighhh and I though you might actually have something useful...
"

Selective quoting only works when the other side doesn't have the record


Now then here is a clip of the "keep" and "excavator from your 29 meg version...



And here it is from John's bitmap version...



Both of these images have not been altered other than to add the text... I can clearly see the difference and I am sure so can the others...

And here is my clip of that one... (Yes I added color... live with it.) But I challenge you to produce this area from your image. I tried from the one you had on your website (which I see is active again LOL) but could not get the same results.

It was for that reason I considered that there was no point to further examination of your copy.




Originally posted by Access Denied
Yet the defense contractor states 1600 were taken


Oops my bad the 1600 was HIGH res... not adding Hi res and low res




Originally posted by Zorgon
BTW NASA’s figure according to the table below is 2160 MR and 882 HR so that probably just means not all of them were usable for the USGS’s purposes.


It more likely means that not all the high res were released by the DoD...



All that means to me is John’s not the only one who’s seeing stuff...


All I see really is that you seem to have a bee in your bonnet regarding John. Seems you have difficulty grasping the fact that other people might have similar ideas INDEPENDANTLY... and that is why they are attracted to ATS in the first place... because like myself I found ATS and John while looking for information on topics I was interested in...


Originally posted by Zorgon
So why do I need to ask a mod to remove a link from my post to a website that was featured on a major network?

Because it looks like you posted it to “expose” my identity here on ATS in a desperate attempt to try and avoid having to answer some tough questions. Like I said in my U2U that’s just NOT COOL but hey, suit yourself, your reputation here isn’t my responsibility.



Really? That’s funny because it seems to be working fine now.


Ah... The games they play. But thats good, saves me posting them..



[edit on 14-6-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied Let’s do a little comparison to see how well this latest claim of yours holds up shall we? Here’s the “crane” again from my original….


Now here’s the “crane” from the 9.8 MB JPEG version I posted…

Now who’s the fool with an agenda? And just for fun here’s the “crane” from John’s picture…


Now you tell me who’s “crane” is bigger (LOL) and has higher resolution (even in compressed JPEG format!)?



I do not see how you consider yours higher resolution at all, bigger yes, but certainly not clearer... And as you say enlarging jpegs is useless. So its a good thing we have it in bitmap and .tiff format then


And its quite obvious that you do not see the crane, or the peekaboo (which actually is still recognizable in your image that you clipped) so why bother trying? The "crane" in Johns clip even though you posted iy smaller is a lot clearer

Here it is in C#1



And here it is in C#5 the same "object" in two images from different angles several months apart.




but I realize that might be a little over your head judging by your performance here so far.


Well seeing as you cannot discuss this without resorting to insults, and in my opinion I have shown others here that our clip has better detail, there seems little point me wasting anymore time debating this with you. We will just have to agree to disagree.

I have other work to present. As far as I am concerned, I do not see your copy as any better than ours, and its only use is to show that negatives ordered at a later date do not show the anomalies clearly. I will however add the caveat that it may be a result of the scanner used , as I do not have YOUR negative to study.



posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by greatlakesIt certainly seems that the above posting comparison that the JL image of the supposed *crane* is lacking resolution and detail as compared with zorgons and AD's, of which those two seem comparable,


Thanks for that comparison greatlakes, I really appreciate that observation! That will clear things up for the audience...

Only one small teeny weeny annoying little problem with that statement...

My images and clips of anomalies in Copernicus are ALL taken from John's original bitmap scans of his negative...

So how can JL's images be less quality than mine?


And I am anxiously awaiting to see what AD comes up with on the "excavator" clip from his version...


And while were at it lets find this one on AD's image as well (It is actually there...
)






posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
Now here’s the “crane” from the 9.8 MB JPEG version I posted…

Now who’s the fool with an agenda? And just for fun here’s the “crane” from John’s picture…

Now you tell me who’s “crane” is bigger (LOL) and has higher resolution (even in compressed JPEG format!)?


If the line separating the top part of the image from the bottom part of the image is the line where two strips joined, then those images do not look like they were made from the same source, because the first image looks like it had the two strips overlapped more than the second image.



posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
If the line separating the top part of the image from the bottom part of the image is the line where two strips joined, then those images do not look like they were made from the same source, because the first image looks like it had the two strips overlapped more than the second image.

Hi ArMaP, love your avatar.


I think you're right, the strips had to be aligned by hand any time a new "master" source image was made from the data tapes and there are actually quite a few examples of these kind of differences that I've found between the two images. The interesting thing about the USGS images as opposed to these two is apparently they digitally scanned each strip separately and then spliced them together in the computer which I imagine probably results in a more accurate alignment since one strip doesn’t necessarily have to cover up the other one all the way across i.e. you could use parts from each one and combine them.

Anyway, good thing we have digital CCD cameras now.



posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zorgon
In that letter I compared a clip of yours to one on mine, sent by your friend Apass...

Ah yes, Apass, sharp guy. Last I heard from him I think he was in a cyber café in Amsterdam on his way to a rave (lucky bastard). I think he said he lived in Romania and was studying Electrical Engineering and photolithography (a process used for making integrated circuits) in particular at the time. Too bad he’s not still around.


Originally posted by Zorgon
"Though mine(clip) is smaller you can clearly see the ring like structures that are erased in your copy... "

I still concur with Apass’s analysis at the time which I see you still refuse to accept in favor of your NASA/DoD “sanitization” fantasy.
Notice that those “rings” (which are probably just highlighted crater rims anyway) just happen to be on a seam between two strips so if it's not there in my copy it’s most likely due to slight differences in alignment between copies. You do realize the strips had to be aligned by hand and matching them up was a somewhat subjective decision made by whoever did it don’t you?


Originally posted by Zorgon
Both of these images have not been altered other than to add the text...

Careful Ron, that’s the kind of statement that could get you banned here.
You know it’s against the TAC to knowingly make a false claim and you know you altered your copy by enlarging it to make it more comparable to mine.

Here’s what the “keep” looks like in my copy…



And here’s what the “keep” looks like in John’s copy…



Notice that in this particular section John’s image appears clearer at it’s original size so you can see how some quality is lost by enlarging it even though my image is ~1.5 times larger (i.e. scanned at a higher resolution).

Anyway, the point is, if you’re going to tamper with the evidence, you should clearly state what you did and why and you should also post the original (unaltered) image along with it to illustrate the difference in case there’s any doubt.


Originally posted by Zorgon
It was for that reason I considered that there was no point to further examination of your copy.

That statement right there is why you’ll never be a credible researcher in my opinion. You can’t just ignore (deny) the evidence that doesn’t fit your theory (i.e. it’s time for a new one) and hope it goes away and you especially can’t fabricate or manufacture your own evidence like you’ve been doing here.

AD


P.S. Anybody who’s interested in verifying anything that’s been presented here in this thread (or even just adding to it) is welcome to post (here on ATS) any clips you want to use from my copy of the image as long as you credit me (“Access Denied”) as your source. The full version can be downloaded here but fair warning, it’s pretty huge…

neverworld.net... (29.0 MB JPEG)



[fixed typos]

[edit on 14-6-2007 by Access Denied]



posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
Anyway, the point is, if you’re going to tamper with the evidence, you should clearly state what you did and why and you should also post the original (unaltered) image along with it to illustrate the difference in case there’s any doubt.


Ummm you keep making the same mistake over and over... you keep clipping from the .gif that is posted here.. I am using the .bmp original higher resolution scan... and that has been on my website from the beginning

Now stop trying to evade the request. I asked you to match the copy of the "excavator" from YOUR image...


Originally posted by Zorgon
and you especially can’t fabricate or manufacture your own evidence like you’ve been doing here.


How is enhancing what is there "fabricating"? The excavator shows a LOT more detail even in that small clip you just posted above than it does in yours.... even in a browser... yours has no detail at all and its barely a fuzzy blob...

But as I said , I will not debate this anymore... it is obvious that you cannot see the difference. so there is little to be gained either way

Now please be so kind as to show me the excavator from your image so that it appears better than mine...

And enhancing an image to bring out details is NOT an invalid method. Its used by all military, CIA, FBI and police agencies to bring out details and turn a fuzzy image into something that can clearly identify someone or something enough to stand up in court...

And people who have those skills get paid very big bucks



new topics

top topics



 
164
<< 163  164  165    167  168  169 >>

log in

join