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: 170
164
<< 167  168  169    171  172  173 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I'm willing to recant the "hair" analogy, but still not so sure about the change in texture. I looked at the big pds map of it again and from what I can tell, it almost looks like the camera deliberately took better res pic of that area, perhaps because the terrain was so much different. It's darker and has odd shapes in it, such as




and





posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
If it was a case of progressive JPEGs then the image would the best quality on the top part, the first to be received, and the worst on the lower part, that would still be receiving the data.

Minor detail but the strips are likely rotated and that’s not how progressive JPEGs work…

www.faqs.org...


The advantage of progressive JPEG is that if an image is being viewed
on-the-fly as it is transmitted, one can see an approximation to the whole
image very quickly, with gradual improvement of quality as one waits longer; this is much nicer than a slow top-to-bottom display of the image.



Originally posted by ArMaP
I think this is a case of an image made with several strips, and some of those are not of the same quality as the others, just that.

Right but I’m also addressing a possibility for the quality issue. I would have to do some more research to find out exactly what compression algorithm (if any) NASA used on this particular mission to transmit the image data but there’s really no point.


[edit on 16-6-2007 by Access Denied]



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
And this one has a few oddities as well, same area.




posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Comparative analysis of why the highly defined area is so much more superior and leaves me wondering, if they spent all that money to send the thing there to take good pics, why this area came out clear as a bell, but the rest is all gooky





posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
If you wanna see an underground base, check this out.. also the anomaly like the one you posted Undo, is in the same area..
I think you will find it interesting, and the features are growing in numbers everytime google earth refreshes itself...
What is it?


18 37 S , 70 17 W
Have fun.

[edit on 16-6-2007 by Fowl Play]

[edit on 16-6-2007 by Fowl Play]



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fowl Play
If you wanna see an underground base, check this out.. also the anomaly like the one you posted Undo, is in the same area..
I think you will find it interesting, and the features are growing in numbers everytime google earth refreshes itself...
What is it?


18 37 S , 70 15 W
Have fun.

[edit on 16-6-2007 by Fowl Play]


I'll try FlashEarth. I can't figure out how to do the coordinates in Google Earth (even though I have it). Can you tell me how?



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Comparative analysis of why the highly defined area is so much more superior and leaves me wondering, if they spent all that money to send the thing there to take good pics, why this area came out clear as a bell, but the rest is all gooky


The best photos are obviously obtained when the spacecraft is nearest to Europa. There are two potential problems, which will prevent that the whole surface of Europa can be photographed in hi-res:

1) Unless the spacecraft coincidentally happens to be exactly on the line between the sun and Europa, Europa will not be "full", i.e. some of it will be dark. The dark areas will have to photgraphed either earlier or later (depending on spacecraft course), and therefore from a larger distance.

2) Depending on the relative velocity of spacecraft and Europa, the time interval in which the best photos can be taken may be relatively short, and possibly too short to photograph all the visible surface in high-res. However, I admit that I don't really know if this is an actual issue, or if there is always "enough time" during a close encounter to get any photo you want. So if someone who knows better says I'm completely off the mark on this one, I'd accept that
.

Regards
yf



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx
[(reasonable explanation ...)

I concur.



Originally posted by yfxxx
(... and now back to wild speculation and NASA/science bashing ...)

[sigh]

Indeed I believe I’ve shown John has some explaining to do now regarding the claims he made in his first post in this thread…


Originally posted by johnlear
As I mentioned most of these photos have been retouched. Through some quirk of fate I not only received on that wasn't retouched but received the actual negative.


Shall we place bets whether or not he’ll publicly recant his claims now or will he hide his head in the sand again when faced with the contrary evidence that several ATSers worked together to present like he did with his gravity claims?



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
AD,

What's he supposed to admit to? That he has negatives of the original, untouched photograph? I don't get what you are trying to accuse him of.



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access DeniedAgain, since you apparently didn’t get it the first time, the MIB thing was a joke in response to Zorgon’s paranoia expressed to me in a private email.


Paranoia? LOL No wonder its hard to take you seriously... you love to twist everything around... The "paranoia" I expressed was this phrase...

"Maybe you are MIB after all trying to undermine the mine
"




3. I’m not advertising, Zorgon blew my “cover” here. I would have preferred to remain anonymous.


Actually all I did was post a website link with The "Picture of the Century". a reference that you yourself posted as challenge. I never once mentioned that I thought it was YOUR website... which in truth I was not sure of until you reacted so extremely.
After all you didn't ever sign your emails...

So you have only yourself to blame




Any more questions?


Yeah... why are you so angry? If your version of reality is true, then we are just a bunch of tin foil hat wearing lunatics... and you should know better than to argue with lunatics... you can't win...

But if even one tenth of what we say is true, then your boss has a lot of questions to answer


So then as to the battle...

Here is your "crew"



Here is mine...



Two captains in their garb...



Two Knights and Dames of the Red Dragon... in our garb...



Your steed...



Our steed...




To Undo...

We only slay evil Dragons, and the foils and epee's are for the Ladies


Tho' our Dragon be Red doth not make him evil, Would,st Thou judge a fellow Human by merely the color of his skin?

Okay enough diversion... Tomorrow its back to the Moon Images...


To Access Denied...

Just one question for

If there wasn't something going on, why does Boyd Bushman, a senior scientist from Lockheed Martin insist that "we" have antigravity tech and in an interview when asked " So in your opinion do we have the technology to reach the Andromeda Galaxy?" he answered "YES" and he has openly demonstrated simple antigravity experiments on video?

As you well know the existence of anti gravity is one of our key factors. So a senior Lockheed official discussing this openly kinda leans in our favor here


Seeing as you are, as you say, into propulsion research, I would assume that you surely know all about this...

I suppose he too must be a kook? Or perhaps your position is not in the "need to know" group on that aspect.

I also see that you did not answer the direct challenge to produce a clip of the "derelict excavator" to match mine from your image. I expected as much, but thought you could at least give it a try




[edit on 16-6-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fowl Play
If you wanna see an underground base, check this out.. also the anomaly like the one you posted Undo, is in the same area..
I think you will find it interesting, and the features are growing in numbers everytime google earth refreshes itself...
What is it?


18 37 S , 70 15 W
Have fun.


Do you refer to the different colors of the various segments pasted together in this area? That's perfectly normal in Google Earth, because GE uses images from many different satellites, using different color filters in their cameras. I know people who can actually tell which satellite imaged a certain GE area just by looking at the hue of the imagery
!

Regards
yf



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx

Originally posted by Fowl Play
If you wanna see an underground base, check this out.. also the anomaly like the one you posted Undo, is in the same area..
I think you will find it interesting, and the features are growing in numbers everytime google earth refreshes itself...
What is it?


18 37 S , 70 15 W
Have fun.


Do you refer to the different colors of the various segments pasted together in this area? That's perfectly normal in Google Earth, because GE uses images from many different satellites, using different color filters in their cameras. I know people who can actually tell which satellite imaged a certain GE area just by looking at the hue of the imagery
!

Regards
yf


Erm no , i dont think so , but thanks for the giggle..



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   


Two Knights and Dames of the Red Dragon in our garb


You forgot the picture/link!



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Fowl Play

I figured it out. Well then, I see there's something there. At first, Ithought it was pixellization but the more I look at it, the more I realize it isn't. You've either discovered a base or an archaeological discovery! Some of that is definitely pixels, but there's clearly sections that are not. Interesting find!



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I also thought it an Archeological discovery, when i documented it months ago.. unfortunately its rapid increase in size ( it is humongous) over several months has proved to me that this is no Archealogical site..
There was only several anomalies at first, now there are hundreds, oh and most of it is in or close to an abandoned Military base, theres an old aircraft hangar, a mine and many military features around..
I have my suspicions of what it is, and its relation to the Moon.. but i really dont fancy going into it yet.. its too early in the day, so to speak..

Great work in the thread btw



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fowl Play

I have my suspicions of what it is, and its relation to the Moon.. but i really dont fancy going into it yet.. its too early in the day, so to speak..



Don't forget to explain it once you wake up.

It's already 5 PM here. lol



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Yeah, but it depends on the settings of your video card and monitor, and your IP company, whether or not you can see what I see in the images.
When I read this I remembered something that I had never remembered before during our discussions about image, formats, etc.

A LCD monitor may not show as many colours as a CRT monitor, many LCD monitors are limited to 6 bits per primary colour, giving a total of 262,144 colours instead of the 16,777,216 of a CRT monitor.

I have witnessed this some times in the company where I work. I am the only person who uses a CRT monitor, a 10 years old Nokia, but this is the only monitor that shows the colours as they really are. A co-worker was making our web site and the colours he had chosen (different shades of blue) looked good on his laptop but they looked reddish on my monitor.

I don't know if this is relevant for grey-scale images, if the same problem arises then those monitors will only show 64 shades of grey instead of 256.



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
You forgot the picture/link!


No you just looked before I finished the edit



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
When I read this I remembered something that I had never remembered before during our discussions about image, formats, etc.

A LCD monitor may not show as many colours as a CRT monitor, many LCD monitors are limited to 6 bits per primary colour, giving a total of 262,144 colours instead of the 16,777,216 of a CRT monitor.

I have witnessed this some times in the company where I work. I am the only person who uses a CRT monitor, a 10 years old Nokia, but this is the only monitor that shows the colours as they really are. A co-worker was making our web site and the colours he had chosen (different shades of blue) looked good on his laptop but they looked reddish on my monitor.

I don't know if this is relevant for grey-scale images, if the same problem arises then those monitors will only show 64 shades of grey instead of 256.


I have a normal monitor (not an LCD). It's a gateway, 32-bit color. video card is NVidia GeForce 7600 GS



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Increased the size of one of the bucket wheel pics from thelivingmoon.com... , just to get a better look. This thing is cranking! Look at the size of those dust plumes. Wonder what they're digging for in this one. ...




And this one (which I found after Zorg found it and didn't realize it, and we both arrived at similar conclusions regarding the anomalie on the left. But check out the area with green arrows pointing at it. That looks like another one!




new topics

top topics



 
164
<< 167  168  169    171  172  173 >>

log in

join