John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

An interesting thought.
How do they keep astronomy students who have access to the big scopes and satellite imagery, from spilling the beans?
Do you think they have to pass the muster before they're allowed to do so? Like one of those lovely college fraternities (skull and bones, comes to mind), where you basically swear to keep the secrets of the brotherhood? maybe they show them grisly images of other candidates that broke their oaths. put a little fear of .... um..... can't say fear of God cause as far as I can tell, God's on the up and up on this subject.

[edit on 13-10-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
An interesting thought.
How do they keep astronomy students who have access to the big scopes and satellite imagery, from spilling the beans?

A shocking thought
Maybe there are no 'beans' to 'spill'

Do you think they have to pass the muster before they're allowed to do so? Like one of those lovely college fraternities (skull and bones, comes to mind), where you basically swear to keep the secrets of the brotherhood? maybe they show them grisly images of other candidates that broke their oaths. put a little fear of .... um..... can't say fear of God cause as far as I can tell, God's on the up and up on this subject.
[edit on 13-10-2007 by undo]

Maybe they just say "practically everything you see and catalogue is going to be taken completely out of contect by fools, conspiracy theorists, and those with little or no knowledge of scientific facts".

----------------------------------
fixed quotes




[edit on 13/10/07 by masqua]

Chorlton,

Alrighty, if you promise not to call me a fool again, I'll keep reading your posts and responding to you. But if'n you continue with the needless insults, I'm gonna have to skip your posts. Not ignore, mind you, just --- oh, it's just Chorlton again, next post.

Originally posted by zorgon
And how about LROC images? You know Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter?
lroc.sese.asu.edu...

Where are all those images?

I guess you missed this text on the "Mission Overview" page...

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission is scheduled to launch in the fall of 2008 as part of NASA's Lunar Precursor and Robotic Program (LPRP) and is the first spacecraft to be built as part of the Vision for Space Exploration.

Originally posted by undo
Chorlton,

Alrighty, if you promise not to call me a fool again, I'll keep reading your posts and responding to you. But if'n you continue with the needless insults, I'm gonna have to skip your posts. Not ignore, mind you, just --- oh, it's just Chorlton again, next post.

Could you point out to me where I called you a fool? That entirely proves my point about people taking things out of context and changing things around to suit what they *think* it means

But then again, as they say, if the cap fits..............................

Here is a good example of high resolution photos made from low resolution originals.

If we download (or see, if we have a plug-in installed to see TIFF files inside a web-browser, like AlternaTIFF) that it is just a resize of the smaller GIF image.

Originally posted by undo
An interesting thought.
How do they keep astronomy students who have access to the big scopes and satellite imagery, from spilling the beans?

Well at the Lick they use it every night the 120 inch scope... but no one is interested in looking at the moon... I am willing to bet that this is the case for the others... and Mt Palomar public relations said precisely that

Originally posted by ArMaP
I guess you missed this text on the "Mission Overview" page...

Dagnabbit ArMap I know YOU read the links... I wanted to see if anyone else did

As to .tiff files... if you have Paintshop you can set it to automatically open .tiff files... well it works from Firefox I don't use IE so can't tell you

I have a small problem... Maybe John you can help me...

I cannot recognize any locations in these images...




Caption Reads...The upper right dark area is ocean, the west rim of the Oceanus Procellarum (The image was taken around 2:50 p.m. on Oct. 5 (JST) about 1,500 km from the Moon.)



Caption Reads: Almost the same area as the left image, but closer to the Moon (The image was taken around 3:00 p.m. on Oct. 5 (JST) about 1,200 km from the Moon)


Caption Reads: A boundary in the lower left is the line between the area that receives sunshine and the shaded area at around 80 degrees north latitude. It was too dark to observe the North Pole.
(The image was taken around 3:10 p.m. on Oct. 5 (JST) about 800 km from the Moon.)


But I can't seem to line these up with any known features that I am familiar with...

So these images are supposed to be live TV... These captures were taken Oct 5... its the 13th Why does it take so long to show us the video feed? Considering they can obviously take out captures to show us.

And why would they place a camera that has to look through all that junque in the way... junque on which the camera seems focused on hence the 'fuzzy moon images'

And I certainly don't recognize THIS feature...
This is just a 4x enlargement... I certainly hope we get better resolution than THIS I thought the Japanese were good at making Cameras







[edit on 13-10-2007 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


Judging by the schematic, and I don't know how accurate it is, the baby satellite releases look as if they are roughly south farside.






www.selene.jaxa.jp...

Originally posted by Zarniwoop

There are many, many photos that are not available in a high resolution (tiff, best example) format on the Internet. The evidence for that is everywhere. There are also many photos that ARE available in a high resolution format. Same mission, same camera... why are some photos scanned for high res distribution and others in.jpg fomat

Because the Internet hasn’t been around all that long and the Lunar Orbiter pictures (for example) were taken 40 years ago and are in storage. The full catalogs (listing what’s available) have been in print and available to the public the whole time and NASA’s practice has been to make a copy (prints or negatives in the past, digital scans today) when one is requested (for a stated purpose) by interested researchers (sometimes for a small fee). I imagine the ones that ARE available in hi-res are the ones that somebody has requested before i.e. the most popular.

Who knew that 40 years later a few people on some obscure conspiracy web site who already don’t trust NASA (and probably don’t pay their taxes) would expect them to have every single image scanned at the highest possible resolution at their beckon call?

The point is, how is this evidence of a conspiracy to suppress the “truth”?

Originally posted by Zarniwoop

Storage is cheap these days. And I'd bet NASA could get an intern or two to work a weekend and scan 'em all in for a few hundred bucks.

You mean like this?

USGS Astrogeology: Very High Resolution Lunar Orbiter Digitization Project
astrogeology.usgs.gov...

UPDATE

Recently scanned and constructed data for Lunar Orbiter V can be viewed and downloaded for the following sites: 15.1 (Dawes), 32 (Eratosthenes), 35 (Copernicus secondaries), 43.2 (Gassendi), and 48 (Aristarchus).

This is all we have been funded for this year, but please visit again soon for updates on cosmetic and cartographic products.

You guys should send them some cookies or a thank you note… or better yet some cash.

That’s a bunch of new pictures of Copernicus and of Aristarchrus for you all to go through and look for evidence of a cover-up of a “mining operation” and a “nuclear reactor”.

Originally posted by zorgon
Show me where the full res images of Lunar Orbiter 1, 2 and 3 may be found... the entire set please not a few hand picked ones. The ones taken from 22 miles above the surface.

Well, as has been pointed out to you already there’s quite a few full res images here…

Lunar Orbiter Photo Gallery
www.lpi.usra.edu...

They even have a fairly good scan of the one at this beginning of this thread…

www.lpi.usra.edu...

(although my copy of LO-II-162 is still better than John’s or theirs)

How are they supposed to know which ones you’re interested in? NASA can’t read your mind and not everybody is looking for “anomalies”. It may come as surprise to you but some people actually use NASA photos to do legitimate Science… your “mission” to try and “expose” and discredit NASA isn’t exactly at the top of the priority list.

That said, if there’s one you want that’s missing, I suggest you (politely and professionally) ask the appropriate folks at NASA if they can make you a copy and tell them what you want it for. Be prepared to pay for it if necessary.

Originally posted by zorgon
Also please link me to the high res .tiff files of all the Apollo images that are displayed in jpg version at LPI

I take it you haven’t been able to find what you’re looking for here?

The Project Apollo Archive
www.apolloarchive.com...

If so, again, I suggest you (politely and professionally) ask the appropriate folks at NASA if they can make you a copy and be prepared to pay for it if necessary.

Also, the above site is private so I suggest you get the owner’s permission before you go using his scans in books, t-shirts and coffee mugs and selling them at UFO conventions like you’ve done with other images.

By the way, do the members of ATS get a % of your profits for the work they did helping you and John find all those “anomalies”?

Originally posted by zorgon
Several people have already ordered copies in tiff from JPL, only to find the file sent is merely an enlargement of the jpg

Prove it. How do you know it’s an “enlarged” copy of the JPG? Has it occurred to you that the JPEG could be a “reduced” version of the TIFF?

The whole JPEG vs. TIFF argument is pretty much a red herring anyway… especially with (8 bit) gray scale images and using low compression settings. If you need to look at individual pixels to make something out chances are it probably isn’t there.

You’ve yet to acknowledge that the JPEG copy of LO-II-162 on my web site with a file size smaller than any of John Lear’s “high resolution” pics posted here on ATS (in the first post of this thread) still has more detail at ~1.5 times higher resolution. Explain that.

Originally posted by zorgon
You also obviously missed the part where a directory that DID have some 50 - 60 meg tiff versions of the Apollo series were REMOVED while people here in this thread were downloading them... I still regret I did not save them all before posting the source...

Ah yes, “the big one that got away”…can you prove it? Was it a NASA site or were you poking around on somebody’s site where they didn’t want you to be i.e. it was supposed to be private? Then again maybe “they” were just messing with your head.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
I'm sure you probably already know about this site

Yes but thank you for trying

LO4 and LO5 were taken from high altitude…

Wrong. The link 4DWF gave you was to hi-re images from LO3 and LO5 and this table shows that the highest resolution images obtained by LO3 were 1 m (same as LO2) and LO5, even though it was at a higher orbit, still got 2 m resolution photos…

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Both of these are “card table” resolution. You can’t keep using this as an excuse!

Originally posted by zorgon
You know the old saying ..."Put up or......"

Au contrare.. the burden of proof is on you.

Good luck with that.

[edit fix typos]

[edit on 13-10-2007 by Access Denied]

Originally posted by zorgon

So these images are supposed to be live TV... These captures were taken Oct 5... its the 13th Why does it take so long to show us the video feed? Considering they can obviously take out captures to show us.

But what you fail to realise is that its THEIR satellite, they dont have to show you anything

Access Denied said:
The point is, how is this evidence of a conspiracy to suppress the “truth”?

Well, it all started about 300 years ago. And it went downhill from there. I think, anyway. Now it's like, if they did tell the truth, no one would believe them.

Originally posted by Access Denied
Who knew that 40 years later a few people on some obscure conspiracy web site who already don’t trust NASA (and probably don’t pay their taxes) would expect them to have every single image scanned at the highest possible resolution at their beckon call?

Obscure site of non taxpayers? I forecast more bans in your future LOL

The point is, how is this evidence of a conspiracy to suppress the “truth”?

The POINT is that people like yourself come in and claim that the images are all available, none are hidden... (and yes I expect them to have them ready... not just the ones they choose to release. Any library can get you archived newspapers dating back for over 100 years... yet NASA with their big budget can't keep a few good pics around?

You mean like this?
astrogeology.usgs.gov...

This is all we have been funded for this year, but please visit again soon for updates on cosmetic and cartographic products.

You guys should send them some cookies or a thank you note… or better yet some cash.

WOW I wonder how much cash they need? Considering its been since 1967 and we are still waiting... and considering they were ALL already processed originally seems there would be little work or money needed to put them in a gallery... I mean 1 person over 40 years could surely have had time to at LEAST scan the whole set in low res?

That’s a bunch of new pictures of Copernicus and of Aristarchrus for you all to go through and look for evidence of a cover-up of a “mining operation” and a “nuclear reactor”.

LOL You really do try hard, I grant you that... but there isn't one photo of Copernicus on there that is even close to the resolution of John's version that started the thread.. and that resolution is the minimum required to see any detail in the crater... but we shall see if the Japanese can do any better.

Well, as has been pointed out to you already there’s quite a few full res images here…
Lunar Orbiter Photo Gallery
www.lpi.usra.edu...
They even have a fairly good scan of the one at this beginning of this thread…

Man are you actually on the same planet? We are not looking for "fairly good"... I will let the others her judge between the fairly good and Johns LOL wont take much...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

(although my copy of LO-II-162 is still better than John’s or theirs)

So your saying better copies exist...thanks for making our point

How are they supposed to know which ones you’re interested in? NASA can’t read your mind and not everybody is looking for “anomalies”.

Well they seem to know which ones NOT to show us

It may come as surprise to you but some people actually use NASA photos to do legitimate Science…

Since the skeptics in this thread have repeatedly harped on the 'fuzzy quality' of the images and that no one could make any conclusions based on what the images show, please explain to me of what use they would be to scientists and just point me to a legitimate Science program that uses these images...

Thanks

That said, if there’s one you want that’s missing, I suggest you (politely and professionally) ask the appropriate folks at NASA if they can make you a copy and tell them what you want it for.

Been there done that still doing it.. still don't have the ones I want... perhaps you have a better source and would like to share it with us? I am sure your 'connections' with AFRL gives you better insight as to who to contact at NASA

I take it you haven’t been able to find what you’re looking for here?
The Project Apollo Archive
www.apolloarchive.com...

Oh yes found a few good ones there especially the best anomaly to date... the structures near Tsiolkovsky crater too bad they don't have them all but hey a few is better than none...



If so, again, I suggest you (politely and professionally) ask the appropriate folks at NASA if they can make you a copy and be prepared to pay for it if necessary.

Also, the above site is private so I suggest you get the owner’s permission before you go using his scans in books, t-shirts and coffee mugs and selling them at UFO conventions like you’ve done with other images.

However before you start on your copyright crusade you might want to do your homework. I have no need to ask permission from that site for anything... as all the high res images posted there are links to Nasa official images... even says so on the site in question...

"Many photographs on this website are courtesy of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, specifically the NASA History Office, Kennedy Space Center and Johnson Space Center, "

Also in that same line is a direct link to NASA Image Use Policy... in case you missed it... and for any other's benefit...

Using NASA Imagery and Linking to NASA Web Sites

10.13.05

Still Images, Audio Files and Video

NASA still images, audio files and video generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video and audio material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits and Internet Web pages. This general permission extends to personal Web pages.
This general permission does not extend to use of the NASA insignia logo (the blue "meatball" insignia), the retired NASA logotype (the red "worm" logo) and the NASA seal. These images may not be used by persons who are not NASA employees or on products (including Web pages) that are not NASA sponsored.

If the NASA material is to be used for commercial purposes, especially including advertisements, it must not explicitly or implicitly convey NASA's endorsement of commercial goods or services. If a NASA image includes an identifiable person, using the image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy or publicity, and permission should be obtained from the person. Any questions regarding application of any NASA image or emblem should be directed to:

www.nasa.gov...

The only issue is with NASA's LOGO, recognizable people and endorsements... other than that if you want to make calendar or poster of cool Hubble Space Telescope pictures or images of the Moon... GO FOR IT.

As to moon pictures... I much prefer those from Mike or Noel... and THOSE my friend Pegasus has purchased printing rights to.

And this policy by the way applies to USGS and NAVY (IE Clementine Images) and I have THAT in writing

www.nasa.gov...

You’ve yet to acknowledge that the JPEG copy of LO-II-162 on my web site with a file size smaller than any of John Lear’s “high resolution” pics posted here on ATS (in the first post of this thread) still has more detail at ~1.5 times higher resolution. Explain that.

Did that already... you got 'irate' because I 'exposed' your website and thus your true identity with your posted resume (showing the accomplishments of the guy you worked for ) :puz"

But if you insist when I have some spare time I will do comparisson clips between the "fairly good' one you linked to at LPI, yours and John's. Then I will let the viewers decide who has the better resolution...

Au contrare.. the burden of proof is on you.

You really are a comedian you know

except that this time it doesn't work that way... the credo of the skeptic has always been "you can't prove a negative.." Very conveinient... means they don't have to do any actual research. But in this case I hold the negative... I say they don't exist in public directories you say they do, so unfortunately in this case it IS up to you...

Anyway this has all been dealt with several times in this thread... nothing has changed... back to the real work

reply to post by zorgon

And why would they place a camera that has to look through all that junque in the way... junque on which the camera seems focused on hence the 'fuzzy moon images'

Z, the camera that has recorded those images is just an onboard camera to moniter the Hi Gain aerial not the real deal camera for Moon imaging.

The Hi Gain aerial is the thing at the end of the pole with a cover over it, since that needs to be pointed at Earth it probably gives a rough indication of where Kaguya is relative to the Moon.

Injection into the normal Lunar observation orbit is the next event on the 19th Oct, "regular" (don't quite know what that means) observations don't take place until mid December, apparently there is a lot of testing and checking and setting up and stuff and not forgetting the testing and adjusting the vertical and the horizontal hold, brightness and contrast with maybe just a little tweaking of the colour balance, oh and just getting the driver to get out the windex to give the camera lens a final wipe.

So maybe we can all enjoy some Moon TV sitting down to Xmas dinner and savouring our wine.