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: 246
164
<< 243  244  245    247  248  249 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by tep200377
 


Since when a 3d render based on data is considered as a picture?

And you said "picture" as it was a photograph. If that wasn´t the case, you should clarifiy that it was a render in the original post. Clarification that you ommited totally, until Zorgon pointed it out.




posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion437
reply to post by tep200377
 


Since when a 3d render based on data is considered as a picture?

And you said "picture" as it was a photograph. If that wasn´t the case, you should clarifiy that it was a render in the original post. Clarification that you ommited totally, until Zorgon pointed it out.


Sheesh... Here's the recipe (admittedly simplified):
a) take a 3D radar-based surface model
b) take a 2D photograph of the same crater
c) superimpose the photograph on the surface model for visualization purposes.

It starts getting funnier and funnier, how the believers-in-the-reactor are trying to insinuate that the image is somehow fake. But then all the photographs that we know of, can be fake if you allow yourself to be paranoid enough.

The radar imaging appears to work well... And no, there is nothing fake about the pic I linked to.

There are a few ways to determine and cross-check the topography of hte lunar surface:

astrogeology.usgs.gov...


Sorry, no reactor for you today.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The truth is that you stated that is was a picture , and it wasn´t.

And i wait with impatience that you copy and paste the posts when i assure that it is a reactor or that the images are fake.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion437
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The truth is that you stated that is was a picture , and it wasn´t.


What do you call a graph, a 2D image or a representation of a radar scan? Most people call it a picture. I do, too.


And i wait with impatience that you copy and paste the posts when i assure that it is a reactor or that the images are fake.


Oh God, I can only commiserate... It must suck to be so impatient... I am in no hurry... If it takes you years to prove that that hole in the ground is a reactor, I'll wait. But won't hold my breath.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377
I think you are mixing skeptics with religious people ..


Not really... there are certain skeptics who are more zealous than any religious fanatics... it is those that expect a clear non blurry photo of a flying saucer when the very drive system would ensure that they would NOT photograph clearly.

Those same skeptics see nothing but rock because they don't even bother to look past the browser image and if I point at it or high light it they cry foul...


At least ArMaP works hard at explaining WHY he only sees rock



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Not really... there are certain skeptics who are more zealous than any religious fanatics... it is those that expect a clear non blurry photo of a flying saucer when the very drive system would ensure that they would NOT photograph clearly.

Those same skeptics see nothing but rock because they don't even bother to look past the browser image and if I point at it or high light it they cry foul...


At least ArMaP works hard at explaining WHY he only sees rock


If that is the case, it really comes down to how many times you have seen bladerunner and state that movie as a fact. ( remember the scene where Harrison zooms in on that picture )

Because, you can't do that in the real world at the moment. You cant look past pixels or dpi's. When you do that, its all imagination, and to be clearer on that statement, its your imagination..

ArMaP does a fine job trying, but when it comes to pointing out things for you, you always bait on to another subject linking to images of non-related content or pasting text from non-related content.. When you continue to do so, we kind of give up on explaining anything to you..



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orion437
reply to post by tep200377
 


Since when a 3d render based on data is considered as a picture?

And you said "picture" as it was a photograph. If that wasn´t the case, you should clarifiy that it was a render in the original post. Clarification that you ommited totally, until Zorgon pointed it out.


Either you are ignorant, or you just don't get it.
1. A picture could be whatever you want it to be. A painted image is a picture..

are you still with me here ?

2. A photo ( Photograph ) is taken by a device. You might call it a camera, if that helps you grasp the explanation..

Now .. if you still are with me, here is the deal: you can render a picture using a photo as a texture. Now there is an exotic word, texture.

Are you still with me?

So then again .. oh heck .. just forgett it .. This is useless. I'll explain it to my dog, and if he gets it .. I'll give it another try.


Edit:

And might I just add this:

In the above pic of the Aristarchus crater


He was not reffering to his own picture, but the big picture further up.
His picture was below the text. Go figure..


[edit on 17-1-2008 by tep200377]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377 You cant look past pixels or dpi's.


I don't look past the pixels... the artifacts I point out I can spot clearly in a small version of the image in my browser and so can thousands of others... the fact you cannot see it is something I can not help you with... nor do I have the desire to try... After all you are here for your own purposes... and they have little to do with seeing anything... my purpose is to present what I see to those who can see and understand... no matter how silent they may seem




ArMaP does a fine job trying, but when it comes to pointing out things for you, you always bait on to another subject linking to images of non-related content or pasting text from non-related content..


ArMaP has been very helpful on many fronts he needs no defending. But as to the posting of stuff being non-related... that is so only in your opinion... because those that can see the bigger picture can understand the context quite easily... and that includes a few skeptics




When you continue to do so, we kind of give up on explaining anything to you..


Well that surely isn't true... you and a few others have made it your mission to explain it to me... I see no sign of you 'giving up' But I would have thought it obvious by now that I am not 'giving in' to your tactics...
(although my posting time for the next few months will be short)

So I will be changing tactics for awhile... more stuff posted... less banter with the Lemmings






posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Well, even though we are from two different planets, its always fun debating. So don't be away to loong, we might dry out


Oh'well, we'll just give JL more to debate while you are gone



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by tep200377
I think you are mixing skeptics with religious people ..


Not really... there are certain skeptics who are more zealous than any religious fanatics... it is those that expect a clear non blurry photo of a flying saucer when the very drive system would ensure that they would NOT photograph clearly.

But you dont have the faintest idea what drive system any supposed 'Flying saucer' even had, let alone provide any proof that such things exist anyway. But dont let reality get in the way of a good yarn eh?


Those same skeptics see nothing but rock because they don't even bother to look past the browser image and if I point at it or high light it they cry foul...


But believers will see what they want then simply point the fingers and say "AHHH we can all see it"



At least ArMaP works hard at explaining WHY he only sees rock


But the point is, Logic should state to any sane person that it is indeed a rock untill proven otherwise, and, as yet I have seen no proof otherwise.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Hello,

this is one of the best pictures/videos of moon structures I have ever seen......in the same class as the "Reactor" pics........

Link: youtube.com...

Regards

Jonas



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Sweden
 


That looks like the Tardis from Dr Who, maybe he took a wrong turn somewhere or was just breathing the fresh air on the moon


I think that Video is abit dodge image doesn't fit in


Tom Baker took a wrong turn, he was trying to get his aze to mars




[edit on 18-1-2008 by crackerjack]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
the artifacts I point out I can spot clearly in a small version of the image in my browser and so can thousands of others... text highlighted by MrPenny


Thousands? Who are they? Why not pull any arbitrary number out? Hundreds of thousands.....tens of thousands.....a couple dozen?

"Artifacts"? How about "odd shapes that could be nearly anything". If you've already decided they are artifacts, and that gets your motor running.....you will always see "artifacts"....and not what the "millions" of others will probably see....pixelated images of rocks and odd geological features.





[edit on 18-1-2008 by MrPenny]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

it is those that expect a clear non blurry photo of a flying saucer when the very drive system would ensure that they would NOT photograph clearly.


where do you get this notion that ` flying saucer ` drive systems make pictures blurred ???

just curious - do you have any evidence ?

seems to me that people are inventing properties to explain the blurred pictures



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by realyweely
 


realyweely,

I will get a warning for this, since it's off topic...but I am crazy about your avatar!! Absolutely brilliant! Hope others agree...OK, I'm off.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by tep200377
 





and to be clearer on that statement, its your imagination..


I wonder if it has ever dawned on you that people don't need you telling them what is and isn't their imagination?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
I wonder if it has ever dawned on you that people don't need you telling them what is and isn't their imagination?


I wonder if it has ever dawned on you that people don't need you telling them what is and isn't their opinion? This is a forum, get over it!



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by tep200377
 


You're qualified to have an opinion about your own experiences, but where's your qualification for others experiences? That's the part I don't get. I mean, you can have an opinion, of course! But what makes you think other people want it if it means you are trying to tell them what they think or what their experiences are? Are you omniscient?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
You're qualified to have an opinion about your own experiences, but where's your qualification for others experiences? That's the part I don't get. I mean, you can have an opinion, of course! But what makes you think other people want it if it means you are trying to tell them what they think or what their experiences are? Are you omniscient?



No mather what you think or don't think, you took the text far out of the content.


Because, you can't do that in the real world at the moment. You cant look past pixels or dpi's. When you do that, its all imagination, and to be clearer on that statement, its your imagination..


I only said that if he saw past the pixels which is not possible at the moment, its all imagination.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   


I only said that if he saw past the pixels which is not possible at the moment, its all imagination.


You don't see past the pixels you see depth in the image. It's an image of four dimensional object. It has depth as well as height. Some only see the uppermost layers, like peering at a cloudy photo on google earth, of a place on the planet. you can see threw the clouds, the upper layers of the atmosphere between the satellite and the planet. That's what it means, and doesn't have to be his imagination to be seen, since it follows the rules of physics. Yes?




top topics



 
164
<< 243  244  245    247  248  249 >>

log in

join