It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 67
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 06:29 PM

Originally posted by MagicaRose Where is John Lear?

He has been banned for undisclosed reasons along with SteveR who tried breaking paragraph 2f of the T&C in an attempt to get him back on the board.

If the holy triumvirate does not like me shooting straight then they can ban me too.

posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Matyas

Originally posted by MagicaRose Where is John Lear?

He has been banned for undisclosed reasons along with SteveR who tried breaking paragraph 2f of the T&C in an attempt to get him back on the board.

No, he wasn't banned, you can see that the last time he has logged in was 31/12/2006.

SteveR last active date is 06/01/2007.

posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:26 PM

It means they can log-in and read everything but they cannot reply or post new topics.

posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:38 PM
Undo, keep up the great work you are way ahead of the curve. You have trained yourself to see these anomolies, where most can not or do not want to see. It is easier to critisize then to investigate for themselves further. I see the statues as plain as day and are similar to statues I have viewed thru photos from missions on and above Mars. As time passes John Lear will be proven correct that humans did and still do inhabit the planets and moons of our solar system. I did not take John Lear's saying there is life on the other planets in our solar system as the gospel. I checked it out myself spending thousands of hours of scanning photos from the planets and moons of our magnificent solar system. Yes there is life on many of the planets and moons in our solar system and yes the majority contain humanoids. Titan is closer to being the Earth's twin and do not fall for the scientists calling these lakes and oceans liquid methane. It is called water and ice and the PH and composition of the water on Titan is different from the PH and composition on Earth which normally runs between 7 and 8. On with the show I will discuss my findings on another thread. Can you smell a cover up. Rik Riley

[edit on 5-1-2007 by rikriley]

posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Matyas
He (John Lead) has been banned for undisclosed reasons

That is not correct. We were very (uncharacteristically) forthright in our explanation for the post-ban applied to Mr. Lear's account in this post.

Now please stay on topic with the discussion of the moon images.


posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 08:42 PM

Originally posted by admriker444
again just another rock.

Perhaps it would be less confusing if we stuck to the photos that this thread is about?

But then you would have to explain real anomalies rather than post pictures of "blurry rocks"

This one hardly looks like a rock. Its one of three we have found..

This one sure doesn't look much like a rock either...

Here is the second excavator....

And here is a third, though this one looks like it has two wheels...

And then there are the pipes....

And two more interesting ones....

These are a review of a few of the better ones. If anyones sees these as rocks, it is highly likely you failed the Rorschach Test miserably

[edit on 5-1-2007 by zorgon]

posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 09:20 PM
So far I have tried to keep out of the squabble... but enough is enough.

Take a look at the following stats posted on the front page of ATS...

If you remove the games, this thread is fourth place and as to the silent viewers we are second even against the games...

Author Forum replies views
the final answer to everything? 5577 198578
Games & Events 4913 81901
"Higher light answers for questions" 1724 51949
New ATS GAME ON ! 1589 34974
What can we do to address race-relations and solve racism? 1475 25900
Proof Positive of Alien Comms 1346 50287
John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS 1325 94726

Now this should tell you something... its a popular thread... and for the most part, no matter which side of the fence you are on there has been a lot of work and research, and judging by the awards and u2u's that have been recieved in the last few months, people are having a good time.

These childish efforts to derail the thread are not appreciated by either side... and quite frankly a waste of valuable time. Attacking individuals for their beliefs and what they see just ruins it for everyone. Just because you may not see something, doesn't mean that others can not. The military pays big bucks to those people that have the skills to spot things in photos. Just go back a few posts to the image I showed as an example. Even I would not have spotted the rocket or the trailer in that image...

You don't see something... fine no problem... but endless posts on what you don't see are pointless...

As to John... he has been gone several weeks now... That is an issue between John and ATS... I am sure those 300 plus letters that were sent against him will be happy to see him gone. So okay he IS gone, why are we still fighting over that?

I just posted several of the better images from the collection on the original images of the post. I will post a couple more after this letter. I will be very busy the next few days with mundane work, after which I will evaluate how much more effort to put into this thread.

I have been asked by the board to do a compendium and carry this further, and I am prepared to do that as time allows in the next few weeks, but I would like to see more on topic discussion. I don't care which side of the topic you are on...[skeptics make the best research assistants
), but I think I will have to warm up that red button that says "ignore" on it....

posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 09:25 PM

Rocks indeed! PPTTTAAHHHH!


posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 10:05 PM
Here is a picture I took myself a couple of hours ago.

On the original image, you can see a blue patch near the top, and a distinct atmospheric blur on the moon.

Yes, I am aware of chromatic abberation, but this does not match most CA I get, so it's an open case. Who really knows?

The second image is color enhanced.

The blue is actually the brightest crater I could see through the scope (which was much clearer than the shot by the way).

[edit on 5/1/07 by SteveR]

posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 10:26 PM
This is an independently taken photograph, I beleive it is pointing out the same thing.

posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 10:36 PM
Here is something interesting.


posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 12:10 AM

Originally posted by SteveR
This is an independently taken photograph, I beleive it is pointing out the same thing.

Hmmm yes Aristarchus Crater to be sure in the second, and most likely in yours

The second one though shows the back side of the moon mostly... I wonder what the text says that goes with it. Aristarchaus is A, what's B and C ?

posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 12:13 AM
Here is a very unusual IFO taken on 9-9-2006....

An appropriate shot to launch us into 2007

posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 02:00 AM
Found this one an an amateur astro-photograhy site the other day. Can't remember where.

I think its a crater somewhere in the Ibrium area

Zoomed in...

I think there may be some interesting finds lying around these types of sites.

posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 02:26 AM

Thank you for the kind words.


I unmasked Rampart.

This is the process I use to do this:

I use Paintshop Pro 8. You can probably find it for sale somewhere, but it's long since been replaced at the official site, with newer versions. By now, they've already come out with Paintshop Pro XI (11). There's a 30 day, fully functional free demo at their site. The program may be slightly different because it's three versions later and the company was purchased by Corel (It was owned by Jasc corp when I purchased version 8). I can't guarantee that they will offer the same features as i haven't downloaded version 11, but it's worth a try if you're interested. I've made the link into a tinyurl as it was a very long addy to begin with.

Here are the diagrams for how to unmask the layers of an image in my version of Paintshop Pro 8.

First select "Colors" from the top menu

Then select Split Channel and Split HSL

In the next post, I will show how the layers split off and what's underneath the "Rampart" picture, in the link you posted.

posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 02:40 AM
When using Split HSL, it separates away the layers of the image (if there are any) based on Hue, Saturation and Lightness. If a mask has been applied, it's probably most obvious when splitting the HSL. Some photographic software automatically masks background objects of a particular size and shape or lightness, because they are translated as anomalous or extraneous by the software.


1. the first layer in an HSL split, shows the image without hue, so it's a grey scale version of the original.

2. The second layer is usually the most revealing, if a mask has been applied. It usually splits into a negative of the original picture, minus some masking features. It's important to note that masks of this nature are not the only process used to hide data in images. Other techniques are: developers solution applied directly to the negative of the original image, painting on the negative, overlays, such as transparencies, and coded algorithims that add random data over top of the original so that it's harder to tell what you're seeing in the layers and/or the final product released to the public.

Since it's in negative, here you will want to use "Brightness/Contrast" so that you can see what's in that dark background. Simply converting it by selecting the negative image option, is not as revealing as at this stage, the entire image is very dark, so converting it is going to make it very light. Instead, use the Brightness/Contrast. in Paintshop Pro 8, this is done by selecting "Colors" from the top menu, then "Adjust" and then "Brightness/Contrast"

3. The third layer shows the shape of the mask itself, if there was one. Even if you can't determine what the mask hid in the second layer, you can definitely see the shape and/or size of what they were hiding by looking at the third layer (mask).

For example, in the Rampart image SteveR linked to, the mask (found on the third layer of the HSL split) reveals the areas that were masked out of the final image. Observe:

I hope this helps and makes more sense to those who were wondering how I was finding the anomalies like the Tsiolkowsky Crater "ship" / "mining facility" / whatever it is.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by undo]

posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:40 AM
Okay i downloaded and installed paintshop pro XI and
to split HSL on it, you choose "Image" from the top menu and then "Split Channel" from the drop down menu, and then "Split to HSL" from that. honestly, it's not as user friendly as paintshop pro 8. when i finally located the image i wanted it to open, it opened it as nothing but a dot. which meant i had to increase its size, something most people who know nothing about graphics programs, would figure out. definitely not a newbie tool.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by undo]

posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 08:19 AM

Originally posted by undo
When using Split HSL, it separates away the layers of the image (if there are any) based on Hue, Saturation and Lightness.

That is the reason I still do not believe in this method.

Splitting to HSL is the same as splitting to RGB or CMYK, it decomposes the image in their components using different systems, not the layers of the original image.

I made some images that I hope will explain what I want to say.

This is the original image.

It was made using the text tool on PaintShopPro 6, that creates a text layer. Then all layers were joined to the background and saved as PNG to avoid those nasty JPG artefacts.

The first sentence is written with the same Hue as the background colour but fully saturated.

The second sentence is written with the same Hue as the background but with a different Lightness, that is why is whiter than the first. The saturation is also at the maximum.

The third sentence is written in a different Hue but with the same saturation (fully saturated) and lightness than the first sentence.

These are the "H", "S" and "L" images resulting from the "split to HSL" command in PainShopPro 6.


As you can see, and because the pixel values of this image are mapped to the Hue of the pixels of the original image, the first and second sentences have exactly the same Hue value as the background, so they cannot be seen in this image.

The third sentence, being in a different Hue, is clearly seen over the background.


In this image all sentences look the same because they were all written with full saturation, that is why they look white over black when seen only as saturation values over the background, which has zero saturation.


The lightness image shows the difference in lightness between the second sentence and all others. The second sentence was the only one written with a different lightness value, so its the only one to show over the background. The pixels around the first and third sentences can be seen because the text was applied with anti-aliasing, creating a smooth contrast between the letters and the background.

What I think this means is that if some image is applied to the (digital) original but we keep its Hue, Saturation and Lightness the same as the surrounding area, then the separation to HSL can not show that the original was changed.

Also, as this only applies to colour images, its useless in greyscale images, if that image to which SteveR pointed us to had not the yellow text and the arrows, as the original images from John Lear, this technique of splitting to HSL would probably show nothing, as you can see if you split the original John Lear images to HSL.

This is also useless in greyscale images they had a tint applied to them, like those two images that zorgon posted above.

PS: PaintShopPro was a very user friendly program before Corel bought it.

posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 08:23 AM

Originally posted by SteveR
Yes, I am aware of chromatic abberation, but this does not match most CA I get, so it's an open case. Who really knows?

Does your photo only show that area or do you have a photo of the "left" side of the Moon?

If a photo with the "left" side shows a blue atmospheric blur then I think that this is only chromatic aberration.

posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 11:37 AM
Let me give you an example:

First is the original image

Then the Mask Layer I'm putting on the original image

Next the HSL Split of the Masked Original, which is just a grey scale of the masked original

And then the HSL Split 2nd layer, which reveals the original image without the mask layer. this is the same image as the original without the mask, but in negative and grey scale. also the lightness is less pronounced since the layer for lightness was removed in the first split.

And finally, the third and final HSL split layer, which reveals the mask itself, which was a gradient layer placed on top of the original image.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by undo]

new topics

top topics

<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in