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: 68
164
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Undo, thankyou for sharing that technique with us.


ArMap, yes, the atmospheric blur goes all the way around the circumferance of the moon. The only place it doesn't is where the crescent ends (no full moon yet).

I will endeavor to take some more shots tonight.

By the way guys, I know a few amateurs who spotted "bright objects" moving around the Mare Crisium area. It's a large area, but worth examining.




posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
OK, I used the same image but I put over it a layer with the same hue.

My version of the image.


This is the Hue channel. As I choose the same hue for the layer I put over it we can not see the difference between the layer I put over the original and the original itself.


This is the Saturation channel. I did not thought of using the same saturation but even so the difference is not that big.


This is the Lightness channel. This is where the biggest difference can be seen because I used a lighter version of the same hue, if I had used a colour with the same lightness we would not see such a big difference.


See what I mean? The Hue channel shows the colour mapping, if the colour is the same we can not see that a different image was pasted over it.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
ArMap,

Yep, I do. I'm not sure how that helps us in this process of discovery, though. It sounds as if you're saying the only way the mask would show up is if it were a different hue/brightness and saturation. Considering what they may be hiding and what they may want it to look like when the mask is finished, it's possible it shows up more often when it is used than not. For example, the building in Tsiolkowsky Crater is various colors just based on the grey scale of it, you can tell. So to make it appear like a heap of white moon dust and rocks, they had to cover part of it up with what would look like a crater floor of a dark brownish color, then the rest of it with whitish gray, rocks.

If you'll recall the tsiolkowsky pic that was unmasked revealing that complex building and factory, the clouds and smoke are still firmly intact and ABOVE the underlying structure. You ask any expert with graphics, how that's possible, and they'll tell you that what's below those clouds is what's below those clouds, unless even THAT is a mask or mod. It appears in the final version, the cloud was incorporated into the sand. They simply made it into a prominence of white sandy rocks using the same shape.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by undo]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Could anyone tell me where John Lear got these photo's of the moon and are they actually photographs of the original photographs?

I'm sorry but I tried looking back into this thread for this information but there's so much here....



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Yep, I do. I'm not sure how that helps us in this process of discovery, though.

It doesn't, it only creates false positives, that is why I have been trying to show what I mean.

I think that it is impossible to see what was altered in the pictures. I will try to make an example of an altered image that will show what I mean.



If you'll recall the tsiolkowsky pic that was unmasked revealing that complex building and factory, the clouds and smoke are still firmly intact and ABOVE the underlying structure.

What picture are you talking about, I am allready confused with so many pictures.

Is it this picture?


If this is the picture you are talking about then I think this is a capture from a video that zorgon has on his site, its not just a photo.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea
Could anyone tell me where John Lear got these photo's of the moon and are they actually photographs of the original photographs?

I'm sorry but I tried looking back into this thread for this information but there's so much here....


John's explanation is on page 1 of this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Thanks Zarniwoop!
Now I recall reading that information back when this thread was started -- should have checked again on the first page but I didn't think the information would be so detailed...



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I have observed, some people may have a psychological inability to cope with the things discussed in this forum, and other forums.

Anything which may cause them psychological distress, will force their psychological defense mechanism to maintain perpetual denial.

Similar to a person who does not remember a traumatic event.

I am neither for, or against a lizard, or a rock, it is simply either a lizard, or a rock. (or a lizard and a rock)

The forum is interesting and informative.

(I tried to clarify the statement)



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Is it this picture?


If this is the picture you are talking about then I think this is a capture from a video that zorgon has on his site, its not just a photo.


Yes, that is the picture. It's from an apollo moon landing video. It's a frame. Do you have paintshop pro? HSL split the layers then look as close as you can at the results.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by undo]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by nnelsosj
I have observed, some people may have a psychological inability to cope with the things discussed in this forum, and other forums.

Anything which may cause them psychological distress, will force their psychological defense mechanism to maintain perpetual denial.

Similar to a person who does not remember a traumatic event.

I am neither for, or against a lizard, or a rock, it is simply either a lizard, or a rock. (or a lizard and a rock)

The forum is interesting and informative.

(I tried to clarify the statement)




I definitely agree with what you are saying here and even though this subject matter is off topic for this thread, I'm just amazed that so many people in this forum cannot accept that so much of the material shown in these threads should be considered paraphysical where we even cannot rule out that these artifacts and structures that are isolated and pointed out in these photo's of the moon may in fact be anomalous paranormal overlays that only showed up after the photo's were taken but if one were to go up there to the moon to look for those same structures that they are pointing out in these photo's, it very well could be that they will not find them because they will not be able to see them with their naked eye. But that does not mean that those same artifacts and or structures are not there or that they are not 'real'... it just means that they exist in another realm outside our own.

The fact is, it's already known that there's some kind of an inexplicable process that allows those things that exist in those other realms to manifest into our own via a camera or through various electronic mediums/equipment of one sort or another. This is why we see so many photographs of UFO's where the photographer will be saying that they did not see the UFO when they took the photo but only saw it after the photo was developed. Apparently there's some kind of 'intelligence' out there that's controlling this ... I'm under the impression that ultimately, it's those intelligences who decide what they want us to see and what not.

But amazingly enough, I'm finding so many people on this board just can't get past it that the UFO phenomenon and all of those related phenomenon's that are connected with it are not all just physical but in fact are paraphysical where such phenomena is actually manifesting itself from someother 'place' that's apparently invisible to us.

Oh well, just throwing in my .02 worth.... just food for thought but it's something I wish some of you people on this board would consider when analyzing any material that's related to UFO's and aliens of any type.


[edit on 6-1-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea
Could anyone tell me where John Lear got these photo's of the moon and are they actually photographs of the original photographs?

I'm sorry but I tried looking back into this thread for this information but there's so much here....


Didn't try TOO hard though I would guess. Its on the first page of the thread fourth post down.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The images of Copernicus crater are taken from two photos. John had the ORIGINAL NEGATIVE from a NASA contractor... the negative is 16 inches by 20 inches... The photo we are using here is simply a contact print from that negative and that print has been scanned with a commercial high resolution scanner 1 negative was of LO-II-162_H3 which is split into 4 sections here on ATS and the other image is LO-V-155 the same general area but taken from above


Ooopsy I see Zarni already got it.

All the data and more is also on the website

landoflegends.us...

[edit on 7-1-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Lol, I guess what I really wanted to find out was if these photo's were re-photographed but from the information on page one and what you are giving me here that does not seem to be the case.
Thanks for the additional information!


Thanks for the link again... a lot of information here and I've already read over quite a bit of it but just on 'information overload' with all of this and still in the process of processing everything... lol, if that makes sense.

[edit on 7-1-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Yes, that is the picture. It's from an apollo moon landing video. It's a frame.
Do you have paintshop pro? HSL split the layers then look as close as you can at the results.

If this is a frame from a video then any change made to the video must have been made to all the frames, and at 30 (I think) frames per second that is a lot of changes that must be made and all have to be consistent, if they aren't consistent then they will be clearly visible in the final video.

Also, video goes through even more changes in its normal process than photos, so what we see is not what they filmed, its a recompression of a compression, at least, so the image can have many artefacts that were the result of recoding the video.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   
ArMap,

In this case, I disagree. The clouds and smoke would have to be equally compressed and made to look like artifacts, if that were the case and they aren't. It's impossible to have pipes, motors, buildings, smoke stacks, under clouds and smoke and have only the things under the clouds and smoke be artifacts. the only way it is possible is if the clouds and smoke are a new layer placed on top of the lower layers. but they can't be, especially the big central cloud as that shape was used in later images of the sand and rock heap normally seen in tsiolkowsky images.

[edit on 7-1-2007 by undo]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   
undo
I think I have misunderstood you.

Do you think that this video that zorgon posted was altered?

Edit: if you do, what do you think was altered?

[edit on 7/1/2007 by ArMaP]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
undo
I think I have misunderstood you.

Do you think that this video that zorgon posted was altered?

Edit: if you do, what do you think was altered?

[edit on 7/1/2007 by ArMaP]



The frame appears to be altered to hide the smoke, clouds and buildings//pipes, etc, underneath (if i mispell anything, it's cause i'm having trouble seeing the screen atm). if it was altered more than once, the other alteration would have to be the clouds in order for the underlying parts to be artifacts and the clouds not be artifacts (Especially since you can see the clouds are above the underling structures). but i don't think the clouds are a separate masking layer as they would've peeled off with the rest of the masking layer. there are other shots of this scene, and they also reveal structures and clouds when unmasked, just from the edge of the crater, so you can't see the full building like you can in the overhead view.

EDIT: The other shot i have of it, from the same film, is more pixellated, as well. The quality of the shot is degraded and most of the building is out of frame. there is perhaps a part of a structure in the frame but it's covered partially by clouds and pixellated almost beyond recognition. the rest is very cloudy/smoky. You can see that something is there, but you can't tell what. The overhead view is a great deal better and more revealing.

[edit on 7-1-2007 by undo]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   
For anyone following along on the tsiolklowsky crater unmasking of the apollo film clip,
the layers are like this:

1st layer peeled off is the grey scale (color removed)

2nd layer peeled off is the image without the mask, in negative, and in grey scale. To see how it should really look, you need to convert it from negative to positive after using the "Split to HSL" function. This change frmo negative to positive is achieved in paintshop pro 8, by selecting "Colors" from the top menu and "Negative Image" from the drop down menu.

3rd layer is the mask.


[edit on 7-1-2007 by undo]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Doesn't your version of PaintShopPro identify the resulting images of the split to HSL operation with names like "Hue 1", "Saturation 1" and "Lightness 1"? If it does, it would be much easier to us if you would use those names instead of "the first", etc.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Doesn't your version of PaintShopPro identify the resulting images of the split to HSL operation with names like "Hue 1", "Saturation 1" and "Lightness 1"? If it does, it would be much easier to us if you would use those names instead of "the first", etc.



Easier for you but not necessarily for newbies. They'd see the images in a stack and think first, second and third (or at least, that's my theory lol) . Adding concepts and words like hue, saturation and lightness might be a bit confusing initially.

I've got other unmasked images of Tsiolkowsky but none as clear or complex as this one. It's possible the white area is in fact the white dust/rock, but the clouds still look exactly how clouds would look. The entire thing is really rather perplexing. But not so much that I don't recognize it for what it is, or at least, for what someone wants us to think it is. On the original clip, it almost looks like a spaceship. On the Split HSL, it looks like a bunch of buildings, a factory, pipes and other structures. It may also have a ship/satellite, or whatever else there, but those are not readily seen in the image. The factory, as i'm caling it, is the pretty clear, although i have no guarantee it's a factory, it sure looks like something with two smoke stacks coming up from it.

it isn't beyond the scope of our science to have an unmanned station on the moon or that of some of the other countries (like russia, for example). so if this is revealing something of that nature, i wouldn't be surprised.

John Lear believes it's a ship, based on the theories of Norman Bergrun in his book "The Ringmakers of Saturn," in which he explained that the moon was placed in its orbit by a huge ship.



[edit on 7-1-2007 by undo]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Well said.

I was not intending to be off topic.

I was attempting to respond to the argumentative nature of some of the posts.

They seem to take up a lot of space, and time to wade through..

My point being, some people, may have an inherent psychological inability to see the reality of this subject matter.

Attempting to argue, or debate them is pointless.

I prefer to inspect the photographs, and read the direct commentaryof the person posting.

The Universe we live/exist in is tremendously mysterious



new topics

top topics



 
164
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join