John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

I'm telling you guys. W1 and W2 are some of the most interesting features that I've ever seen on the Moon.

TheBorg

Lunar eclipse tonight!

Look at this!

Furthermore along signs and portents, we had a large meteor strike between Washington and Oregon in the eastern part last night.

Also stay tuned for tonight's Star Wars attempt by the U.S. to one-up China with a death ray rocket into one of our spy satellites.

Woo-hoo! Things are a rockin'!

reply to post by Matyas


Aww it's not fair!!! The lunar eclipse for GMT IS 3 am

I could set my alarm clock, but it's very cloudy too.

reply to post by TheBorg


I agree those have some really bizzare anomalies in them! On AS17-151-23138 (WL) you can even see a shadow from some kind of "I beam" if you look real close. really stands out!

Those pics need to be looked at closer and figured out. Good find!

reply to post by TheBorg


Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not impressed. After a better look at Apollo 17 frames, I finally located your "wall" (W2). It is the rim of the small crater that stands out when seen from the side. Its location is a perfect match.

Just an observation I've noticed lately, regarding the loose use of the term "air-brushed" in the last few pages. I build plastic scale models, as well as R/C airplanes and own three airbrushes. I have used them for many hours and suspect that in the hands of a skilled artist (which I am not) then photos could be sufficiently altered in order to hide or enhance (I'm thinking of the use of 'airbrushing' in the Magazine business....before Photoshop...)

Point is, altering a Magazine photo in a Mainstream publication is not changing an important historical document. Meaning, the negatives from the original shoot would be proprietory property and not subject to close scrutiny by scientists all over the world...(unless it was Playboy in the 1960s...:lol...

I'm just supposing that, in the past decades before the advent of computers, would the existence of ink or paint on the NASA negatives be noticed? Or was some other medium alleged to have been used to 'alter' with the airbrush?

Hoping someone has an idea I haven't thought of, thanks.

edit to correct abhorrent selling mistakes...bad hand...

[edit on 20-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


I asked my sister, who is a photographer, about "photo airbrushing", and she said that it would probably be used on large areas with the same texture, like in a photo of a wall, the sky, etc.

For something more detailed the airbrush is not the best tool, and photographers paint the negative with the tip of very small brushes (sometimes just one hair of a brush) to create whiter areas on the photo. To create darker areas they usually paint the photo, sometimes (or some photographers) they scrap the emulsion from the negative with the tip of a sharp knife of scalpel.

The final result can not be detected as an alteration, if it could then photographers would not use it.

My sister said also that she once saw a photo of a man that used glasses and because of that the lights could not used in the same way as in a photo of a person without glasses, so the photographer used different lights and then changed the appearance of the photo to look like he had used the lights in the normal way.

reply to post by ArMaP


Thanks, ArMap...

Could be the term is generic, the term air-brush, I meant.

So, if the original negatives can be altered in the ways you described, without detection...keeps the ball in the air, so to speak, eh??

Cheers.

adding, your sister's story about the eyeglasses probably had to due with unwanted reflections that would detract from the final photo...I see this often when watching movies, you can tell when the actor is wearing fake glasses (clear glass lenses) so to minimize defraction effects, based on how the scene was lit, etc...so, I very much appreciate productions that try to be more realistic.

Thanks, again!!

[edit on 21-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

spelling again, 2nd edit

[edit on 21-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by nablator


Did you look inside of the crater? Both of the things that I'm seeing are in the middle of the craters, not on the rims. Are we seeing the same things?

TheBorg

reply to post by weedwhacker

I'm just supposing that, in the past decades before the advent of computers, would the existence of ink or paint on the NASA negatives be noticed? Or was some other medium alleged to have been used to 'alter' with the airbrush?

I am not an expert but my understanding of the process is as follows, IMHO making it possible to alter large or small areas easily.

For the Copernicus pictures that started this thread it has been pointed out that there are no original negatives available to anyone, they stayed on-board Lunar Orbiter. All available data are scans from second (or third in case of large assemblies) generation prints. They include a huge quantity of photographic artifacts that would have been a pain to airbrush. Some of these artifacts are so obvious that I refrained from commenting. Remember the "tower" or "kangaroo" above Copernicus?

More recent Apollo negatives could have been altered by substituting original negatives with second generation negatives (pictures of airbrushed prints). However, paraeidolia, wishful thinking and jumping to wrong conclusions are more likely IMHO.

If an amazing looking artifact is visible only in a single lighting condition and point of view what is more likely:
- it has been erased in all all other instances with a different point of view?
or
- it doesn't exist, just a trick of light and shadows?

There are many ways to explain observed discrepancies. For example Aristarchus looks bluish in some pictures because different hardware, filters and numeric enhancements were used.

[edit on 2008-2-21 by nablator]

reply to post by TheBorg


I mean the rim of the small crater inside the small crater where the "walls" are located. At first I could not find the exact location in the crater, my arrows on the previous page are off-target. I will post pictures later to prove my point.

W1 = small crater + boulders
W2 = small crater

The "pyramid" is more difficult to locate in AS17 frames, I may have found it but I can't be 100% sure.

The sun is higher above the horizon, the shadows shorter in the Apollo 17 frame. The scale appears to match, so I didn't have to resize or rotate.
W2 looks like a crater rim doesn't it?

reply to post by TheBorg


I noticed the structure in the second crater way back in this thread. When Zorgon first posted the walls in crater image. I mentioned it in a post, but could not upload the photo. It's hard to describe something like that without a picture. Nice work!

reply to post by nablator


You know, you might be right in you're assumption. The only problem that I'm having is that Apollo 17 looks like it was further away from the crater than 11 was. Is this true?

TheBorg

reply to post by TheBorg


I don't know the distance, it doesn't matter much IMO. Apollo 17 frames are too bright, and boosting the contrast as I did doesn't improve the quality, it only reveals compression artifacts.

reply to post by nablator


The only reason that I ask is because I don't see anything in the Apollo 17 image that looks remotely like what's in the 11 one. It may be just a picture artifact of some kind, I dunno. Sure is funny, whatever it is...

TheBorg

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Hoping someone has an idea I haven't thought of, thanks.

Happy to help out...

Take the original photos... say from Lunar orbiter... make a huge scale model... and texture it in 3D and paint it to look the way you want... then take a new photo...

Simple yes?

Start with a blank sphere on gimbals... like so...



Then pull out all those LO images you have kicking around...



Then get your best scientists to make sure its all accurate... (wouldn't want to get caught 'faking' images)



Final inspection by the 'suits'



Make sure you get those light angles right... those conspiracy nuts can be brutal...



Lets add a little of that sickly greenish color we are so familiar with in NASA Apollo images...



OH! And don't forget you are supposed to be viewing this from a small spacecraft window...



Your absolutely right Herr WeedWacker 'air brushing' is a way over used term... it doesn't give the real labor involved due credit

Originally posted by nablator
The sun is higher above the horizon, the shadows shorter in the Apollo 17 frame.us/img86/3574/w2af0.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Got the link to the version you are using? All I have so far is this one... and Daedalus is in the lower center... And its amazing how many right angle craters show on this version...

reply to post by TheBorg


The farside is seen from above in Lunar Orbiter II-033.
The best resolution is Lunar Orbiter II-033-h2 print resolution 4891 x 6252 pixels, 3.5 MB.
There is a big white rectangular blank area at the center-north.
Rotate 180° to have north at the top.

In 2033_h2, W2 looks like a volcano:

Orientation map of the area south-west of Daedalus in LO II-033:

As Daedalus' diameter is 93 km, both P and W2 are about a mile wide!

reply to post by zorgon

Got the link to the version you are using? All I have so far is this one... and Daedalus is in the lower center...

That's the one I'm using. Daedalus is partly visible in the bottom-right corner.
The "Walled Compound" (W1) is not visible in AS11-44-6611. Daedalus is not visible in AS11-41-6156HR.

AS11-44-6609: