John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

Originally posted by Matyas

I don't share the viewpoint of either camp, the pro Johns or the anti Johns. What he showed us, I don't think was about him. It takes courage to break out of groupthink, and that is what we learned we can do.

So team, put that in your hats for a while.

EXCELLENT POINT! It WAS NOT about him, it was about moon pictures.

One of the BIGGEST pains in my arse in the time I've been an owner here has been trying to keep the died in the wool skeptics/de-bunkers OFF his personality and ON his topics. It was UNREAL how many people instantly appeared here to attack him when returned. I had several rather long email exchanges with John regarding how HE could best handle that situation and he did a great job right up until he "stepped in it" in the Area51 Forum which, combined with a few of other illustrations of having no respect for our Members or the forum caused my partners to demand he be post banned (at least he's not IP banned then he couldn't even see the site) and I had to agree.

NOBODY is more important than the newest newbie on ATS, not me, not Simon Gray, not SkepticOverlord, and not John Lear. The Members (ALL of us) will treat each other with respect and civility or we won't be allowed to post, it's that simple.

Like I said (twice now) No Biggie... Posting on ATS is not required for life support, I think John Lear will survive with no problem if he never posts here again.

Springer...

[edit on 12-29-2006 by Springer]

Wow Springer! I really admire your sensitivity on this matter and thanks so much to taking the time to share with us some of those things you've been doing to help make things better!
It's obvious that you really do care about the members of this forum where you seek to resolve whatever conflicts that arise here in a peaceful harmonious, and fair manner. I really do hope that John Lear comes back as his contributions to this forum have been enormously informative and entertaining! Thanks to your efforts, it looks like there's still some hope that John Lear will reconsider and participate on this board once again -- er, someday...

PS -- if not sooner.

[edit on 29-12-2006 by Palasheea]

A new pretty!

City on the Cliffs

Originally posted by CaptainLazySomeone who has been following this thread closely would be thanked greatly if they could index some of the information in this thread for easier viewing.

Glad to oblidge a fellow seeker

landoflegends.us...

You shouldn't be so pessimistic Springer because based on what you were saying before, you certainly did try to smooth things over to resolve those issues those members were having contend with. I'm sure once the dust settles, things will be OK again.

The bottom line is that you tried, and that's all that matters!

Lunar Orbiter Sphinx

Here's an interesting sphinx from the lunar orbiter photos by Aristarchus. There's something next to it, but i can't make out what it is. This appears to be a sphinx with the hebrew looking turban/crown/headdress on, and a wing coming forward, giving the impression that it's like a Solomon's Temple "Cherubim"

This would be absolutely massive.


Colorized for ease of viewing


Original color


[edit on 30-12-2006 by undo]

Originally posted by Springer

The Members are ALL THAT MATTER HERE. Without us Members what would ATS be?

NOTHING that's what.

Springer...

I gotta chime in here because this is the only reason I'm a member on this site. Never joined one before and probably won't join another. What makes this site so great is it's well maintained integrity, it's content, and it's respect for ALL members. The rules are simple... You can write pretty much any thought you have, argue, or even just whine... as long as you are civil and treat other members with respect.

I really like having John as a contributing member here, but I also understand that sometimes his style can be taken the wrong way. At least he is contributing via proxy and I hope he will continue to do so.

Just my two cents.

Now, back to the moon pics

EDIT: poor spelling

[edit on 30-12-2006 by Zarniwoop]

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
I really like having John as a contributing member here, but I also understand that sometimes his style can be taken the wrong way. At least he is contributing via proxy and I hope he will continue to do so.

I liked having John here too. He just has an abrasive personality, that if you don't know how to handle, it can get the better of you. In the aforementioned case, it did. John got into an argument with some members, and they responded in kind, things happened, and viola, here we sit. Some personalities are more confrontational than others, and that's what people like me are for. I like to think of myself as a mediator of sorts.

If both sides could agree to come to a truce of some kind, I'd be glad to act as mediator between him and my fellow ATSers. It'd be an honor and a privilage.

Just my $.02...

As per topic, I'm still going through these pics. I'll get back with you guys in short order (I hope). I got lots of work between now and New Years to do, so it might be a few days before a fleshed out response comes. Hang tight.

TheBorg

May I go "old school" here and get back to Copernicus, where this thread started.

This is a photo available at the following location:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

I think it has been posted on this thread previously (way early) with no interest. It appears to be the opposite rim of that in John's pics.

If you click on that link, there is also a 5mb version to download.

'If' there aren't mining operations on the moon, I believe there may at least be a Land Rover test track in the Copernicus crater. (that I'd really like to navigate top to bottom, BTW). The roads look so nice, I think you could do it in a Hyundai



There are plenty of other things to see in this pic too.

Originally posted by zorgon
Image # LO-1-102
Large versions 9 megs and 14 megs are available on my website on THIS PAGE

Thanks for the pic, i just founded something that looks like a truck ???

Originally posted by zorgon
I am assuming you looked near the top of the page and not just the last image, yes?

Well here it is Bigger fer Borg and Mapped fer ArMap

I almost forgot to thank you for pointing those to me.

But I still do not see them as square craters.

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
I think it has been posted on this thread previously (way early) with no interest. It appears to be the opposite rim of that in John's pics.

That one is amazing. I do not recall seeing this posted before in the thread. Maybe it was as a link. Maybe thats why no comments. Nice one

Speaking of Copernicus... I have been saving one for a while. Seems like a good time to get back on track...

I think I found out what happened to John Cryton's shuttle from Farscape


Copernicus #5 bottom right corner GRID reference 5P-12



I love the little building behind it too...





And just for comparison here is Cryton's Shuttle





[edit on 30-12-2006 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon

I think I found out what happened to John Cryton's shuttle from Farscape

I think that shuttle shape is introduced by shadows, however surrounding area looks interesting. I'll have to take a closer look later

I hate to keep jumping around, but I'm gonna


These are from the Far Side anomalies from the book you posted recently.

Looking over that pic, I see a lot of what look like roads and buildings.

For example...



And why would there be a cloud of something billowing from this crater with roads leading down to it?

Continuing on the farside anomalies pic. Much to see on this one!

This one is from the big crater on the far right side. tcgeek found what he thought looked like a truck in this section (I think it's more of a structure of some sort). But, I am also wondering what that huge circular object is to the right. Doesn't look like a crater (to me)

I call this one "Krispy Kreme"




Happy New Year !!!

[edit on 1-1-2007 by Zarniwoop]

What the hell is this? It's huge!






[edit on 1-1-2007 by tcgeek]

I want only to show how difficult it is to draw a conclusion from one single picture.
Consider the crater Quetelet (Q) and Perrine (P) on far side.
On this first there are some nice features between Q and P.
The white lines are surely some problems on the film. On the right of Q there is a more dark shape that looks interesting.
Notice also the crater above Sarton and Weber.
In the next the crater Q has white stripes in it, must be the low sun.

In this there seem to be some straight lines and a square in the smaller crater which lies in P on the left.
Check also the crater above Sarton and Weber.

The craters Q (left) and P (right) can also been seen on this Clementine .
You can't see nothing on this pictures, none of the above shapes.

What I want to say is that different resolution, different sun position (shadows) results in different pictures, and that it is not enough to analyse on single picture of an anomaly to state that it is really an anomaly.
I don't know if you share my ideas.

Originally posted by looofo
What I want to say is that different resolution, different sun position (shadows) results in different pictures, and that it is not enough to analyse on single picture of an anomaly to state that it is really an anomaly.
I don't know if you share my ideas.

That is one of my biggest problems with threads like this.

If we are talking about anomalies, first we must know what is normal and what is abnormal.

Then we must know what we are working with, that was the reason for my problem with the colour of the Clementine photos, and why I always speak about the direction of the light. That is also the reason why I always want to know the size of what I am seeing.

The quality of the image file is also important, its useless to try to analyze a badly compressed JPG file, the most obvious features of such files are artefacts created by the compression algorithm (JPEG 2000 is different). PNG files do not loose any information, that is why zorgon now uses PNG instead of JPG.

There are many things that can change the way we see an image, that is why we must reduce the "interference" of those things to a minimum.

If we only have one photo, then we must work only with that, but we should try to avoid creating our own anomalies by resizing the image or by giving it a different colour.

Originally posted by looofo
I don't know if you share my ideas.

Yes and no...

Yes you have to really study them to spot which is a film or lighting or whatever glitch... And unfortunately you do need a trained eye and graphic experience really helps, is even a must in some cases.

The other factor is scale. If you see what you think to be a road for example.. then follow along the road and spot a structure or "truck" well the next question is "Is it a size that makes sense" Though a building could be huge... does a truck 5 kilometers wide make sense? They make huge mining machines to be sure... and is we are looking at something alien we have little to compare it to.

So it is best to pick out the 1 or 2 good ones that you can match some scale to. Then you will have a solid anomaly. It doesn't make hunting the rest less valid, but the good ones make better evidence and are easier to see by more people.

The other factor is can you find similar objects in different images. Barring the fact that NASA et al do doctor images, it seems some stuff gets through. Your post of King Crater for example... that one image shows many of the same objects as Johns does and because of the different angle there is some really interesting stuff in the bottom left corner.

I am working on one right now that Zarni found. I will post it later...[computer froze as I was saving it now have to redo it ]

Originally posted by ArMaP
If we only have one photo, then we must work only with that, but we should try to avoid creating our own anomalies by resizing the image or by giving it a different colour.

Well we don't only have ONE photo... we have shown many, in both original high resolution like the Copernicus pictures that John provided. As to the color we add... that does not create an anomaly, it merely highlights the area or object in question and EVERY TIME we have provided both the highlighted one and the original. Many people appreciate the highlighting as it makes it easy to see the spot we are talking about. They can then look on the original to find it. We even went to a lot of trouble to make a grid map so they can be found on the untouched large images.

We have shown comparisons where we locate an object in the C#1-C#4 images and matched the location in the aerial view of C#5

The new images are scanned from a book BEFORE they were touched up and we have shown comparisons to the SAME photos clearly showing cut out overlays...

As to size... its really not that hard and you can do the math yourself Pick any crater and type it into google as "Copernicus size" and you will get a dimension you can use for any given image. A little millimeter scale held on your screen and Voila!! you have a scale. Those that can see the anomalies have already familiarized their minds with the scale. Quite frankly I don't have the time to measure each object. All notes on scale for the Copernicus images, light angles etc have been provided on the menu page of my website.

So all that being said... seeing as we are on page 65 perhaps its time to actually look at the anomalies themselves? If you truly cannot see them I respect that opinion, but many here can... and constantly repeating color and light issues and statements that someone "sees nothing unusual" don't add much to the search.

Happy New Year

Originally posted by zorgon
As to the color we add... that does not create an anomaly, it merely highlights the area or object in question and EVERY TIME we have provided both the highlighted one and the original.

Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was not thinking about the highlights of the "anomalies", those really help to see what the poster of that image is seeing, I was thinking about those sites that like to show images with a different colour (images from Mars with a red tint, for example), that does not help in any way.

If you truly cannot see them I respect that opinion, but many here can... and constantly repeating color and light issues and statements that someone "sees nothing unusual" don't add much to the search.

I have not constantly repeated colour and light issues in this thread (in another thread maybe ), but I think that they are relevant to any discussion about photos. If you do not see them as relevant then just ignore them.

And have a happy 2007!