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: 223
164
<< 220  221  222    224  225  226 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied

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 Internet hasn't been around that long? When did you first hear about it?


What does the age of the photos and storage have to do with anything? ...unless they can't find them, of course.

Again. Funding for this high res scanning feat should be in the hundreds of dollars. Start now and they could be done in a couple of weeks. I'll throw in a hundred bucks if I can see a complete set of LO tiffies


I'd even bet some folks out there would do the scanning work for free if sent a full set of photos.




posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
Again. Funding for this high res scanning feat should be in the hundreds of dollars. Start now and they could be done in a couple of weeks. I'll throw in a hundred bucks if I can see a complete set of LO tiffies
Not if we want good scans.

The company where I work has done some scanning work for some archives, and to get good and consistent results is more difficult than it looks, especially if the originals are not in a standard (for the scanners) format.

But I guess that NASA had enough time and money to do it in the last 10 or 15 years, when everybody started thinking of getting their data on the Internet.



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
The POINT is that people like yourself come in and claim that the images are all available, none are hidden...

No YOU claimed they are hidden. I say they’re not. Prove it.


Originally posted by zorgon
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

The Apollo program used them to select landing sites. You’re welcome.



Originally posted by zorgon
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?

Sorry buddy but you burned your bridges with me. I already got you a better copy of the photo that is the subject of this thread to compare. You’re on your own now...


Originally posted by zorgon
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, "

Funny how you left this part out…


All scans by Kipp Teague except where noted.

I suppose if you want to be a jerk and not credit the guy who did the work that’s your prerogative. Just because NASA is hosting the images he scanned on their site doesn’t excuse you from exercising professional courtesy.

I ask you again since you conveniently avoided the question, do the members of ATS get a % of your profits for helping you find “anomalies”?


Originally posted by zorgon
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 )

No I got irate because I politely asked you NOT to and no you can’t use you the excuse that you didn’t know it was mine because I already proved you did. Clearly you’re not somebody to be trusted if you have no problems with exposing the identity of members of ATS.

And what’s this about “showing the accomplishments of the guy you worked for” in my resume? That’s an allegation. Can you back it up? If not then I must ask you to retract that statement and apologize for attempting to smear my good name.

[edit fixed typos]

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



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
I suppose if you want to be a jerk and not credit the guy who did the work that’s your prerogative. Just because NASA is hosting the images he scanned on their site doesn’t excuse you from exercising professional courtesy.


Well since you want to be stupid... all images on my website are properly credited as per the credit notice on each site that those images came from... the only image we are currently using that is listed on that site is not FROM that site but a link from NASA History page. so your argument is superfluous.



I ask you again since you conveniently avoided the question, do the members of ATS get a % of your profits for helping you find “anomalies”?


What profits would you be referring to? And be careful before you answer... my lawyers are watching this one...


Clearly you’re not somebody to be trusted if you have no problems with exposing the identity of members of ATS.


Whatever you say old chap... You call me out for not comparing your image to ours... and when I do you scream 'foul' for me 'exposing' you... have it your way I have no intentions of you turning this into another one of your famous off topic name calling extravaganzas... Anyone interested need only go back to the threads and see for themselves...

I have no idea what your purpose is here at ATS... but I hope you find what you seek...

Have a nice life


[edit on 13-10-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
thanks for all the hard work zorgon and john lear


i hope, soon, you can truly show the nonbelievers (i am on the fence, i think) the truth...





posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
AD...please don't drag this all out (again). This is the same old schpiel, only several months later.




posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
AD...please don't drag this all out (again).

OK... since you said the magic word.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
i hope, soon, you can truly show the nonbelievers (i am on the fence, i think) the truth...


Well maybe we will get lucky with the Japanese...


In the meantime to get back to Moon Anomalies and away from all the noise... I think it appropriate to run this one one more time as I am still waiting some comments on it


This is from that Apollo archive discussed above...



Jack did a pretty good job of adding a little color to highlight detail



and if you look on the original high res image you will see its not a spec of dust... there is too much shading and detail



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

In the meantime to get back to Moon Anomalies and away from all the noise... I think it appropriate to run this one one more time as I am still waiting some comments on it




and if you look on the original high res image you will see its not a spec of dust... there is too much shading and detail


This one below (on the right) shows a complex that is quite similar to the ones Jack points out, does it not?




[edit on 14-10-2007 by Zarniwoop]



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied

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?
I do not know if this image was one of the ordered TIFFs, but you can compare the bigger TIFF with the smaller GIF.

Looking to these two images what you think happened, the larger, blurrier TIFF (not visible inside the browser unless you use a suitable plug-in) was the original used to make the smaller, shaper GIF or was it the other way?

Or maybe both images were made from a third, unknown image.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

I don't think those things are specks of dust, but I think that they were on the scanner's glass.

They lack the general blurry look of all scanned photos and are as sharp as all the small fibers and other things that can be clearly identified as the result of making a scan with a dirty scanner glass.

If that was made by me or by someone under my directions I would had made another scan, that one shows too much negligence (or ignorance) on the part of the people who made the scan.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I do not know if this image was one of the ordered TIFFs, but you can compare the bigger TIFF with the smaller GIF.

Looking to these two images what you think happened, the larger, blurrier TIFF (not visible inside the browser unless you use a suitable plug-in) was the original used to make the smaller, shaper GIF or was it the other way?

Or maybe both images were made from a third, unknown image.

Yeah I don't know what the deal is with those two… they’re both crap.
I suspect those were made in the early days of the Internet (probably with Mac Paint LOL) when bandwidth was at a premium and people were using 2400 baud modems (if they were lucky LOL) to access the net. The hi-res copies I got from NASA of LO-2-162 (two different sets) that are on my web site were clearly made from different negatives (or reconstructed prints) from each other and from those you just linked to… and from the one John got and the one from the LPI site. The important thing of course is none of them show any signs of “airbrushing”.


Anyway, regarding your earlier point about how it’s not just a matter of “scanning some pictures over the weekend” as some naively think, you may find this document interesting…

USGS LUNAR ORBITER DIGITIZATION PROJECT: UPDATES AND STATUS (2007)
www.lpi.usra.edu...


Introduction: The Lunar Orbiter program of the mid-1960’s successfully put five spacecraft into close orbits about the Moon. The thousands of photographs returned were used in support of future manned lunar landings (i.e., the Apollo program), and served as the basis of much scientific research. For more than three decades, lunar scientists have found great use in the generally high spatial resolution prints resulting from these missions [1, 2]. Over the past five years, the USGS Astrogeology Team has endeavored to bring a subset of these photographs, in a digital format, to the desktop of scientist and amateur alike through the Lunar Orbiter Digitization Project.

Project History: Upon completion of a pilot project during 2001 and 2002 [3], we started in earnest on the systematic undertaking of generating a Lunar Orbiter (LO) global mosaic of the Moon [4, 5]. This involved scanning over 30,000 LO filmstrips at 25-micron resolution, predominantly from LO-IV, and a small number from missions III and V for farside coverage. The scanning effort alone took nearly two years to complete. Once scanned and reviewed for quality, filmstrips were reassembled into the final photographic frame as viewed by the LO spacecraft. Nearly 200 reconstructed frames resulted from this effort. Ground resolutions range from 60 to 120 m for high-resolution (HR) frames (captured through the 610-mm lens) and 500 to 1000 m for the medium-resolution (MR) frames (captured with the 80-mm lens). The result of this initial effort will be a moderate resolution, near-global, cartographically controlled digital mosaic of the Moon. In late 2003 and early 2004, as scanning for the global effort scaled back (with frame construction well in progress), another phase of the LO digitization effort began [6]. At low altitude, LO-III and -V collected hundreds of very high-resolution (VHR) frames of the lunar nearside equatorial region. Ground resolution of these data range from 1 to 5 meters for the HR frames and 10 to 40 m for the MR frames. Concurrent with the global venture, the VHR project [7] processed and delivered a portion of this very detailed imagery to the science community. To date, 166 frames (approximately 20% of the available data) have been scanned and assembled.

[snip]

Data Processing: A majority of the work during 2006 focused on refining the camera models for LOIII, -IV and -V, and geometrically controlling the global and VHR frames. We briefly discuss these advancements below, but defer detailed analyses to future documentation through a USGS Open File Report.

HR Camera Distortion Modeling. Unlike the MR camera, LO mission documentation [8, 9] does not describe a distortion model for the HR cameras. A camera distortion effect in the LO-IV data was revealed during photogrammetric processing [10], encouraging development of a model to correct the behavior. We modeled the optical distortion of LO-III, -IV and -V high-resolution cameras by measuring tiepoints between HR and simultaneously acquired MR frames. Feature coordinates in the MR frames were corrected for the known geometric distortion [8, 9]. In addition to determining (for the first time) the true focal length of each HR camera and measuring a radial distortion pattern, we found evidence of a “keystone” distortion in each camera. This results from a slight (



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
This one below (on the right) shows a complex that is quite similar to the ones Jack points out, does it not?


Yes it does Zarni... I just haven't had time yet to go over it with Jack yet
I will though... promise



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
Scientists are funny that way… they like to get things as accurate a possible... and that takes time.


No doubt (about how 'funny' scientists are) but why did they not just use the originals that were processed BEFORE Apollo 11? I mean they had them all you know...




Heck I would be happy if I could just get THOSE images that they walked all over...
Maybe thats why there is so much dirt on the USGS scans
They had to use these

Or how about sending me the old prints they used to make the 3D studio models? They look pretty good to me too... surely there are a few of them floating around?




Oh and I do have to admit here that the debunkers are correct... NASA DID NOT airbrush the Lunar Orbiter images... this is absolutely true...

They used REGULAR paintbrushes






posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Maybe I'm just missing something here. The original data/pictures were sent as raw format. These were recorded and transmitted in electronic form, right? Why on Earth would they "scan" the original pictures when they surely still have the raw data to get one of their super computers to just process them and put them out in a tiff format? I mean, it's not like all these probes ever came back here with thousands of feet of film to be developed and airbrushed in Area 51...

Also amazing looking for Smart1 that there is only about 50 low res pics available, like Zorgon mentioned. I somehow doubt anything interesting will come out from Japan, sadly enough...



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatsthatthingy
Maybe I'm just missing something here. The original data/pictures were sent as raw format. These were recorded and transmitted in electronic form, right? Why on Earth would they "scan" the original pictures when they surely still have the raw data to get one of their super computers to just process them and put them out in a tiff format?



You are quite correct... the original 70 mm negatives were processed on board and they are moon dust now... the negatives were scanned (hence the lines that many say are 'mosaic lines') in strips.... then sent to earth by video feed....

I would love to know what happened to the video tapes...

Okay okay Its time I write some letters.... maybe if I have one of my contacts initiate the question... I'll see what I can do... I know NASA never responds to these questions, but then there are others involved...

Besides someone in Honeysuckle Creek Australia found 14 minutes of the original high res Apollo 11 footage that we never saw (before NASA lost all those films) in their garage..
I might get lucky...



I somehow doubt anything interesting will come out from Japan, sadly enough...


On that John answered my question... and it seems many other ATS'ers have noticed that there is something wrong with the three images

So lets do all the Japan moon stuff over there There is already to much here to keep up with...

First Moon Picture from Japanese Orbiter

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop

Okay so you found a good one there....




You need sunglasses for this one... and here is the first Zarniwoop Page

Sorry it took so long... I have to go back through your posts now to back track



I sent the image and location to Jack and we will see what he can do...

Here is my version








posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsthatthingy
 



Also amazing looking for Smart1 that there is only about 50 low res pics available, like Zorgon mentioned. I somehow doubt anything interesting will come out from Japan, sadly enough...


Somewhere I believe in this thread I had recorded the dialogue I had with the ESA requesting Hi-Res images from Smart-1.

First of all I was asked why I wanted them, I replied that I was not going to use them for commercial purposes and they was for personal interest.

I was sent 3 images which was kind, but of course I wanted more so asked if there where any more available, I was told no.

I then asked if there where plans to release any to the public in the near future, again the answer was no and with no explaination.

I suppose I could have asked why but frankly I felt as if I was an irritation to them judging by the monosyllable answers so did not press the matter any further.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa

Somewhere I believe in this thread I had recorded the dialogue I had with the ESA requesting Hi-Res images from Smart-1.


Dang I missed that... now I will have to go and look



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

If you want copies of the original Emails Z I can send them to you.



new topics

top topics



 
164
<< 220  221  222    224  225  226 >>

log in

join