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: 26
164
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
No tell me THIS isn't something going on...

Oh yes...I tell there isn't something wrong. Just a game of light and shadow.



In the old picture, the sun is lower and this accentuates the shadows.
To continue, I desaturated the 2000 picture and worked on the contrast/brightness/gamma/blacklevel to make it similar to the old one. And this process accentuated the shadows...and look...the beehive crater just appeared!!!





posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Good job Apass. :up I agree with you completely. Later photo's also seem to have a softening filter or stereo effect that hides the details.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apass

So you see...there is nothing wrong in the picture.
Edited to add for reference the original second picture


No its not the orientation thats wrong sheesh...

its the missing crater/blob/mountain that ISN'T in the second one... Alright for those that donm't follow links LOL

Review

Here is the object... and no Steve we are not talking about buildings... 1946



Here is the second one 1964ish

landoflegends.us...


Here is Nasa Apollo15 pic of the area which they chose as a landing site

Notice half the crater is there... July 1971



and here is the latest Nordic observatory 2004 image



They are all the same crater but the final one is so smooth not a mark left...

You don't think there is anything wrong?



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
See my post above
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I rest my case



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by SteveR
Apollo shot of Earth, 440 pixels wide. Moon diameter 0.27 of Earth. 27% of 440 = 119 pixels.


Good thought, but the apollo piccie was taken with a regular lens and the lick shot was taken through a 40" telescope. You'd probably see earth's highways and beaches with a 40" telescope on the moon. I'm not sure about buildings, but we can clearly see small craters that are only a couple of miles across.


Lines like hyways show up clearly. I have a photo somewhere taken from satelite in the late 70's showing the sahara desert... they were surprised to see that the old camel trail that was used for 1000's of years showed up from space... something to do with the compression of the sand, the water mixed in from years of people and camels leaving deposits and then the resulting difference in reflection... I will find it and post it. Don't know the distance details but I think that would make a good comparison picture



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I look forward to your post. I feel we should all keep in mind the perspective and scale involved. No matter your belief, the moon is truly huge.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
To continue from my previous post..

Here are 'vehicle tracks'...... section to scale with the south end of madagascar!



Those don't look any thing like vehicle tracks... your comparing apples to oranges


And I meant tracks as in roadways...

I am not saying they ARE roads, I say they look like roads and anything that MIGHT make a road would leave a trail I have seen recent shots of mars where Nasa shows you trails left by the rover and its a lot further away than this one...

Ya Ya I know I have to get em...


[edit on 2-10-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Zorgon,
the half crater you are missing in that nordic 2004 picture is in the upper left corner of your green lined zone ...

Take a break from time to time ...



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Has anyone thought of getting time with Hubble? That is the logical next step before going gonzo with a neospace race


Try these resources

edit to include link

[edit on 10/2/2006 by Matyas]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apass
See my post above
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I rest my case



Sighh I guess no one is seeing the area that is a different texture showing little spheres... your ovals are skirting the object...

One last time then I go back to hunting in the mine...LOL




These are similar to ones found in the other images... they are a different texture than the surrounding image and they are not visible on any other image no matter what the lighting and shadow is like...


And if you are going to use other close pixel images to prove a point, you really need to "keep perspective" as Steve says. For such an image to have any meaning at all it needs camera type, film type, lens size and distance from object. Film type is important.

Here is one taken from 280 miles above Earth [its a repeat for "old timers" LOL]
River in China

To Matt:

Hubble says its too close... they cannot do it... something about their focal range... it seems plausible as it was designed for deep space imaging...

IKONOS took one shot of Apollo landing zone and they announce curtly they will NOT be taking any shots of the moon... wonder why they are in the business to sell high res photos of popular themes

And just how many new observatory pictures are there of key areas? Recent?

LOL I rest my case... I will collect more stuff and leave the doubters to others


Digging through some old Mariner anomalies I found this one...
Mariner 9 frame 4209-75


It has a shadow beneath and sure looks a lot like this one



Apass, this one is also not on other pictures.. and a clearer anomaly than mine... light and shadoews too?

[edit on 2-10-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Oh BTW Just have a question...never researched this yet but...

What is HE3 worth these days and what can we do with that?...



Good one, zorgon. Here's an interesting article on the subject.

www.space.com...

Apparently it would be worth quite a lot...


"Helium 3 could be the cash crop forthe moon," said Kulcinski, a longtime advocate and leading pioneer in thefield, who envisions the moon becoming "the Hudson Bay Store of Earth."Today helium 3 would have a cash value of $4 billion a ton in terms ofits energy equivalent in oil, he estimates.


And we could do quite a lot with it...


Scientists estimate there are about 1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousands of years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tons could supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year, according to Apollo17 astronaut and FTI researcher Harrison Schmitt.


And I just love this quote at the end of the paragraph



Even if scientists solved the physics of helium 3 fusion, "it would be economically unfeasible,"asserted Jim Benson, chairman of SpaceDev in Poway, California, which strives to be one of the first commercial space-exploration companies. "Unless I'm mistaken, you'd have to strip-mine large surfaces of the moon."


Hmmmmm...



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop


. "Unless I'm mistaken, you'd have to strip-mine large surfaces of the moon."


Hmmmmm...


Now THAT puts a nice nail in the coffin! Great find

Now that we have the who and why... we just need to work on the how and from where... have a hunch on that and a whole lot of evidence pointing to where...

coming soon for your perusal...



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Hmm so I guess guys like him are the ones who decide if it would be worth it to invest $20 billion dollars to fund their own space agency, mining equiptment, transport vehicles, and personnel for a trillion $ in payloads coming back to earth. Sounds like a good turn around on your money.

He would have to be convinced that it could be done by the right people, but heck why not just make a $500 million dollar investment in seeing if its possible.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
Has anyone thought of getting time with Hubble? That is the logical next step before going gonzo with a neospace race


Well, Hubble would be pretty much useless for examining the moon. It's built to look at objects and expose things much further away. Sad, but true.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite8
Hmm so I guess guys like him are the ones who decide if it would be worth it to invest $20 billion dollars to fund their own space agency, mining equiptment, transport vehicles, and personnel for a trillion $ in payloads coming back to earth. Sounds like a good turn around on your money.

He would have to be convinced that it could be done by the right people, but heck why not just make a $500 million dollar investment in seeing if its possible.


Covered who and economics a few pages back...


Summary at 11:00...

ummmm date to be announced...



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Here is Nasa Apollo15 pic of the area which they chose as a landing site

Notice half the crater is there... July 1971



and here is the latest Nordic observatory 2004 image



They are all the same crater but the final one is so smooth not a mark left...

You don't think there is anything wrong?


Just to play devil's advocate I've highlighted some things ....





I've circled the crater in the newer picture. Points A, B, C, and the "SNAKE" are all reference points. As you can see it's there but was hard to locate because of the different angle the picture was taken at.

EDIT: changed picture host

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Fiverz]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   
I agree with Fiverz.
The pictures are taken from different angles, distance and perspectives. See how the craters are spherical shaped in one, and rotated. The difference in shadows show this as well.

This thread has become a bit scrambled to me, not having time to read it in full.

What exactly is being sought here?
And which side, or area or quadrants of the moon contains the "cover-ups"?

I thought John had said the moon had an Antenna or tower, or alien Moon base, called Luna, and this was on the Far side of the moon, and this is why it isn't visible with a telescope from Earth.
Is this correct? Or was this tower antenna thing on the near side? Because the pics being discussed seem to be of the near side.

And the Copernicus crater is on the near side of the moon?

Can someone give a brief recap of this please and thanks !



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   
I believe he said the tower/base/soulmart thing was on the near side, close to the center of the moon. I don't recall whether it's related to copernicus.

It is getting confusing though, maybe we should start a new thread for the Lick Observatory photo's before it gets too hard to seperate them.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Sighh I guess no one is seeing the area that is a different texture showing little spheres...

What spheres? Have you ever thought that those "spheres" could be the result of processing a verry poor quality image (poor resolution, almost black and white (with no gray tones in between))?
How come that many of these anomalies are found in rather poor quality pictures?



These are similar to ones found in the other images... they are a different texture than the surrounding image and they are not visible on any other image no matter what the lighting and shadow is like...

Oh..but there is no texture diference..only different light and shadows
Look what happend with the beehive crater when I played a little with white / black levels and contrast


Take a look here


Shadows Enhance Definition
Shadowless Images Lose Detail





For such an image to have any meaning at all it needs camera type, film type, lens size and distance from object. Film type is important.

Here is one taken from 280 miles above Earth [its a repeat for "old timers" LOL]
River in China

OK...so what if this picture was taken from 280 miles? Where's the film type (or CCD resolution) you talk about? What about the number of colors/tones used? What about the quatization scheme?



And just how many new observatory pictures are there of key areas? Recent?

What do you mean by key areas? The apollo landing sites? The "strip mines"?



Digging through some old Mariner anomalies I found this one...

LOL
Mariner? What image resolutions are you talking about?

Anyway, I don't see where the object and where its shadow are in this (black and white) picture. My bet is that there are some craters with ejecta blanket.

Mariner 9 frame 4209-75



This picture is a crater (or volcano) with an ejecta blanket.


Anyway, those two pictures look like highly magnified / sharpened cropped pictures from a poor quality image.
Here's what I mean:
Original picture


The modified one (resized to 50 by 40 pixels (to get a poorer quality picture) and then again to 200 by 160 pixels, sharpened and black/white levels adjusted):



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR Well, Hubble would be pretty much useless for examining the moon. It's built to look at objects and expose things much further away. Sad, but true.


..

Whatever


O-Kaay, how about our own little satellite probe thingy? An "observer" orbiter of our own? That would cost less than putting ten people on the surface!

Use a hybrid rocket launched from a high flying craft, deploys in Earth orbit, releases lunar orbitor, orbitor begins Moonflight using solar powered ion propulsion, voyages to Moon, sets itself in orbit, then sends back live feed for us to pour over.

Pretty slick, eh?


Well, it is still hard as hell, but I bet we could recruit some pros to do the grunt work (navigation, comm feed, mapping, etc.)



new topics

top topics



 
164
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join