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: 95
164
<< 92  93  94    96  97  98 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
But on the Lunar Orbiter images, this air brushing or cloning was not available so the only way to hide things would be to smudge the image with a q-tip swab with developer solution, or make the images go away.



Zorgon, I am not sure that this statement is correct. I studied Industrial Design at the Art Center School in Los Angeles in 1962. Although I didn't work with an airbrush I remember there were a lot of students who did. Lunar Orbiter photos started coming in around 1966 or thereabouts.

The q-tip swab and developer solution was certainly used on the Lick moon photos.

I don't know whether or not NASA used the airbrush in 1966 but I do know that the technoolgy was there.

It may be that NASA didn't think that deleting offensive material from the Lunar Orbiter photos was that big of a problem in the middle 60's. Thats why they used what appear to be cotton swapbs and Q-tups for the white 'ejecta' which covers the cities.

I can tell you one thing: if they had been clairvoyant enough to see the advancement in photo imaging in the next 40 years they would certainly have been more careful.




posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Zorgon, I am not sure that this statement is correct. I studied Industrial Design at the Art Center School in Los Angeles in 1962. Although I didn't work with an airbrush I remember there were a lot of students who did. Lunar Orbiter photos started coming in around 1966 or thereabouts.


I got my BA in Industrial Design, (Academy of Art College SF)
I never used an airbrush, though I do use an automotive spray gun
. How do they "airbrush" images? What kind of tools do they use?


Originally posted by zorgon
Thanks and I am working on it... just been real busy at work...


Is there any sites I can go to, to pull some good images of the moon, in which I could potentially find anomolies? Sometimes it gets slow here at work, and I could run through some archives.

[edit on 13-2-2007 by Freezer]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer
How do they "airbrush" images? What kind of tools do they use?


NASA photos are enlarged and placed on a wall. The NASA artist uses a small airbrush to delete any kind of artifact that wasn't natural for instance, buildings, structures, machinery, towers, vehicles, equipment, saucers and anything else that wouldn't normally be on a "cold, dead, world."

In the Apollo 8 photo AS8-12-2209 there is a huge city to the north of Lomonosov (the black bottomed crater). "White ejecta" was airbrushed over this city to cover it. However if you look closely between the 'rays' of the ejecta there are plenty of buildngs. And for some reason they neglected to airbrush out the city that is just south of Lomonosov.

I have obtained AS8-12-2209 from different sources and found that the top half of the photo can be more clear than the bottom half and vice-versa. I do not know what causes that. For instance the copy of 2209 that was in the book Astronomy by Donald Menzel shows a tower in the top half of the photo sticking up from the city that is not visible in the same photo in NASA SP-246.

You can still pull up photos of this area taken from various Apollo missions and see that the area does not, in fact, have all the "white ejecta". The reason is that many Apollo images that were taken of the moon from far out in space show the moon as fairly small. NASA apparently didn't think it was necessary to enlarge these images, airbrush in the 'white ejecta' and then reduce the photo to its normal size.

They didn't plan on anybody scrutinizing obscure farside photos for technical aberrations like I do.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I have no comments because I have never thought of that problem before, so I need to do some investigation to be able to pronounce myself with less probabilities of being wrong than at this moment.


Okay I accept that... and will be awaiting your detailed analysis and report..

The reason I say that is because every time we find an interesting anomaly that is difficult at best to explain it seems to get swept under the carpet


And the answer to the other question is yes... or to show how easy it is to paint some cloudy terrain into a photo... and without the original to compare it is difficult to tell... I have seen images where the crater floor looks like a cloned section from somewhere else, most especially in the Clementine images...

Here is one of Plato Crater...

Click on the external link to bring up the large image to see the close up details. Look along the edges of the black Mare material within the crater. If you examine it closely you will see that it shows obvious signs of tampering. As a matter of fact it appears the whole crater floor has been painted in from some other area. I am looking for other clear photos of Plato Crater to see if any of the features compare.








posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Zorgon, I am not sure that this statement is correct. I studied Industrial Design at the Art Center School in Los Angeles in 1962.


You might be right... I know I worked with that H&W Control Film back in my high school days and it was awesome stuff... no grain...
But I will take a moment tonight and see if I can track down when airbrushing was applied to films.

The other point though is that ANY editing on the Lunar Orbiter shots would have been done on the video signals that produced the images on Earth as the original negatives were processed on board the spacecraft and are thus gone forever [Unless someone on the Moon managed to salvage them
]

I wonder what the state of video image tampering was like back in those days.

I would agree though that they probably didn't worry about it as much in the early days, and I am sure that explains why so many of the LO images are no longer available.

As a matter of fact, try to find any of the Russian images. They post a few, like the ones I found from the Venera craft, but they state that MANY images were taken... yet only one or two can be found on the net. This applies to many of the space craft that the Russians manages to get up.

So where are those pictures?



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Is the green color from Sun light interaction with mineral compounds
in the soil.

The Sun measurements of UV and electron velocities might be helpfull in
that interaction.

In reviewing a physics book, it had the Sun charge at say 2,000 volts
but a book on Tesla mentioned the his figure was 250,000 million volts.

Its not living color its reflected or generated somehow.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne...In reviewing a physics book, it had the Sun charge at say 2,000 volts
but a book on Tesla mentioned the his figure was 250,000 million volts.


Verry interresting.

Is that per sq. meter? And are we talking ev in velocity, not static charge?



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Ingo Swann Fans...

See Here

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Is the green color from Sun light interaction with mineral compounds
in the soil.


Okay you win... I will move on to "glowing things" on the moon for awhile LOL

But I will get back to the cities etc on Farside... just a lot more clipping and enhancing to do... and still waiting for a few background files... so

Glowing Thingies on the Moon 101

Prepare yer notes and lets see what's glowing on up there...



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
In the Apollo 8 photo AS8-12-2209 there is a huge city to the north of Lomonosov (the black bottomed crater). "White ejecta" was airbrushed over this city to cover it. However if you look closely between the 'rays' of the ejecta there are plenty of buildngs. And for some reason they neglected to airbrush out the city that is just south of Lomonosov.

I have obtained AS8-12-2209 from different sources and found that the top half of the photo can be more clear than the bottom half and vice-versa. I do not know what causes that. For instance the copy of 2209 that was in the book Astronomy by Donald Menzel shows a tower in the top half of the photo sticking up from the city that is not visible in the same photo in NASA SP-246.

You can still pull up photos of this area taken from various Apollo missions and see that the area does not, in fact, have all the "white ejecta". The reason is that many Apollo images that were taken of the moon from far out in space show the moon as fairly small. NASA apparently didn't think it was necessary to enlarge these images, airbrush in the 'white ejecta' and then reduce the photo to its normal size.

They didn't plan on anybody scrutinizing obscure farside photos for technical aberrations like I do.


Anyone know where to get these images?





Originally posted by zorgon
Ingo Swann Fans...

See Here

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Your link had one to many "h"s in it. This one is correct now.
landoflegends.us...

[edit on 13-2-2007 by Freezer]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer

Originally posted by johnlear
In the Apollo 8 photo AS8-12-2209 there is a huge city to the north of Lomonosov (the black bottomed crater). "White ejecta" was airbrushed over this city to cover it. However if you look closely between the 'rays' of the ejecta there are plenty of buildngs. And for some reason they neglected to airbrush out the city that is just south of Lomonosov.

I have obtained AS8-12-2209 from different sources and found that the top half of the photo can be more clear than the bottom half and vice-versa. I do not know what causes that. For instance the copy of 2209 that was in the book Astronomy by Donald Menzel shows a tower in the top half of the photo sticking up from the city that is not visible in the same photo in NASA SP-246.

You can still pull up photos of this area taken from various Apollo missions and see that the area does not, in fact, have all the "white ejecta". The reason is that many Apollo images that were taken of the moon from far out in space show the moon as fairly small. NASA apparently didn't think it was necessary to enlarge these images, airbrush in the 'white ejecta' and then reduce the photo to its normal size.

They didn't plan on anybody scrutinizing obscure farside photos for technical aberrations like I do.


[quote[Anyone know where to get these images?



Page 91 of this thread.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Silence Of The Lambs!!


Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by mikesingh
This part of the image (Which I've taken the liberty to enlarge), is what I'm interested in. Fascinating, to say the least!!
(Thanks to undo for the expose!)





[edit on 8-2-2007 by mikesingh]


Awesome pic. That's what i'm talking about! Smoking gun or what?




Ok, guys. Undo had posted an amazing pic some pages back. I zeroed in on a very intriguing portion and enlarged it (above). Here was an incredible pic of anomalous structures, which you can clearly make out without squinting or straining your ophthalmic nerves!

But how come no one has commented on these ‘structures’? Pretty strange! As undo said, is this the smoking gun?

So where’s Armap, our photo wizard? Are these actually pixels which are distorted resulting in these geometrical shapes? Where’s Ron, John, Matt, Rik and the SMEs??

If all seems well with the pic, then can we holler, ‘Eureka!! This is the smoking gun’?

Hell's bells! This freakin' area looks like downtown Manhattan, but still no comments. Darn! It’s frustrating.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
So where’s Armap, our photo wizard? Are these actually pixels which are distorted resulting in these geometrical shapes? Where’s Ron, John, Matt, Rik and the SMEs??


How much did you enlarge the picture? That with jpeg compression could explain what we see.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Silence Of The Lambs!!


Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by mikesingh
This part of the image (Which I've taken the liberty to enlarge), is what I'm interested in. Fascinating, to say the least!!
(Thanks to undo for the expose!)





[edit on 8-2-2007 by mikesingh]


Awesome pic. That's what i'm talking about! Smoking gun or what?




Ok, guys. Undo had posted an amazing pic some pages back. I zeroed in on a very intriguing portion and enlarged it (above). Here was an incredible pic of anomalous structures, which you can clearly make out without squinting or straining your ophthalmic nerves!

But how come no one has commented on these ‘structures’? Pretty strange! As undo said, is this the smoking gun?

So where’s Armap, our photo wizard? Are these actually pixels which are distorted resulting in these geometrical shapes? Where’s Ron, John, Matt, Rik and the SMEs??

If all seems well with the pic, then can we holler, ‘Eureka!! This is the smoking gun’?

Hell's bells! This freakin' area looks like downtown Manhattan, but still no comments. Darn! It’s frustrating.


Looking at the pic near your screen makes it hard to see the anomolies clearly. Back off from the screen 3' 6' 9' you will then start to make sence of what you are seeing. These are faces, structures, buildings and robotics. Not to beat a dead horse look at this pic as though you are looking at a hologram in depth. These faces and structures are similar to modern pop art. Good work------------ Rik Riley


[edit on 14-2-2007 by rikriley]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
So where’s Armap, our photo wizard? Are these actually pixels which are distorted resulting in these geometrical shapes? Where’s Ron, John, Matt, Rik and the SMEs??

I am no photo wizard, just a programmer.


If all seems well with the pic, then can we holler, ‘Eureka!! This is the smoking gun’?

The only problem with that picture is that it was created based on an erroneous assumption, i.e. that the "Split to HSL" command in PaintShopPro leaves the Saturation channel looking like an inverted version of the original image before any alteration.

This idea is completely wrong, and I have tried to show it to Undo many times, but apparently she still thinks this is a good way of finding what was changed in a photo.

Since this "technique" does not produce the results that it was supposed to produce, any use of the results of this "technique" is just a waste of time, those shapes show only the saturation levels of the image, not buildings or clouds.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
So I have this extremely vivid dream last night where I climb out of a shuttle onto the surface of the moon.

The sky is this weird yellow and everyone is walking over to this bus station looking thing.

John Lear is standing next to me looking smug. I smile and say..."Breathable atmosphere...I'll be damned." He nods and points at me like "told you."

Off to our right are some very large mining vehicles working on a terraced piece of land.

That was it...about a 20 second dream...

Just thought I would share.
It amused the hell out of me considering some of the conversations I've had on this thread.

Keep searching...who knows...



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer
I got my BA in Industrial Design, (Academy of Art College SF)
I never used an airbrush, though I do use an automotive spray gun
. How do they "airbrush" images? What kind of tools do they use?



Well in PaintShop Pro its called a "Clone Brush" It literally lets you clone a piece of image from one spot to another. The term "airbrush" is still applied to photoshop images as well because the tool in effect works like the automotive airbrush in the way it "sprays" onto the image. The clone brush in Paintshop Pro however as it uses the pixels and therefor pixel density and quality from the same image, can make, depending on the skill of the user, and almost impossible to tell alteration.

n photographs that are blown up to large sizes like the ones NASA uses (and Playboy as well
] they literally used a small airbrush to remove "imperfections" then re shot the finished project to give you the final photo. You can touch up actual negatives but that is a highly paid skill in the photo world and I doubt NASA has many of those experts






Is there any sites I can go to, to pull some good images of the moon, in which I could potentially find anomolies? Sometimes it gets slow here at work, and I could run through some archives.


I have plenty of NASA archive with tons of photos... but you have to scan old books to get the anomalies before they thought they had to edit everything. That is not to say they don't miss a few things like the "Peekaboo" in AS16-111-18035HR That image was taken from a NASA image library. I guess the editors missed it as it is so small in the original.

You can check it out here...

HERE


Here are a few sources...


JSC Digital Image Collection

Apollo Orbital Images - Kieth Laney Collection


Lunar Orbiter Digitization Project

Funny how many of the original images from Lunar Orbiter are not here ...


NSSDC Image Catalog

And for Mars this is the best

Malin Space Systems



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Thanks for those links zorgon.
Especially the high resolution pics of keithlaney are interesting.
It is astonishing how many of the same Apollo pictures you can find on different sites with always different resolutions.

I found this
that is interesting for its right angle features. Seems all to be natural terrain, especially at 15h00 on the picture.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Quote:
"I have plenty of NASA archive with tons of photos... but you have to scan old books to get the anomalies before they thought they had to edit everything. That is not to say they don't miss a few things like the "Peekaboo" in AS16-111-18035HR That image was taken from a NASA image library. I guess the editors missed it as it is so small in the original."

-----------------------------

Now that I think about it, I do have a book collection which has 3 books full of NASA images. The book collection is atleast 20 years old, and I wonder if theres unedited images in there. I will find those books when I get home. I do have a scanner, so if I see something of interest, I will post it. I didn't even remember I had these books, as I got them when I was around 5 years old.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by looofo

I found this that is interesting for its right angle features. Seems all to be natural terrain, especially at 15h00 on the picture.


That's an interesting photo. I took an area of it and enchanced the levels a bit and found odd things that seem to appear out of near total darkness, including what looks like a tower, a rock-ish looking thing with shadows on two sides, a face, and who knows what else:



[edit on 15-2-2007 by papajake]




top topics



 
164
<< 92  93  94    96  97  98 >>

log in

join