Hoagland's Android Head on Moon, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 17-10-2006 @ 02:31 PM by Shadowflux
The picture is certainly intriguing, it does bare a strong resemblance to a humanoid type head. I'm a professional artist and having some free time today I did a little analysis on the picture from C2C.

I'll endeavor to make it understandable.

The first thing that pops out at me is that the top of the head is conical and a little too short. On a human the eyes are set about halfway down the face. There's no evidence of a ridge above the eyes. There's no cavaty where we would expect to find one in the nose, this appears more like a face that still has it's fleshy nose with the shadow underneath it. It appears as though the right "cheekbone" is rounder and sticks out more than the one on the left side. If it were symmetrical it would reflect the light and cast a shadow the same way on both sides. The cheekbones also do not stick out the way a human's do, in other words, they aren't attached to the side of the skull, they look like a suitcase handle more or less. It also seems as though the head is lacking depth, at this angle we should be able to see more of the left side of the skull. This also makes the face seem a bit flat.

This is deffinitly not a human skull, nor do I believe it's any type of skull. If we are to assume this is the head of some humanoid type robot then we must assume that it was not created in the exact image of humans as we know them. The face would be flater than we're used to seeing and the head would be conical and come to a bit of a point. The eyes are also too close together which would give them a sense of being bigger than they should be. The head would seem longer due to the lack of proper proportions on the sides. In essence the face would look squished and flattened.

Also, and this is important:

The enlargement shown on C2C is not the same as an enlargement of the object in the picture. I've pointed out a few important differences between the two. I believe the enlargement was doctored somehow to make the object appear more like a skull.

Here's the picture, on the left is the C2C enlargement and on the right is an actual enlargement. All I did was select the area, enlarge it with the "Scale Transformation" and then rotated it to match.




reply posted on 17-10-2006 @ 03:28 PM by Shadowflux
Yeah, he's deffinitly reading too much into it. The problem with "color enhancements" and stuff is that many of these guys will be looking for somthing they're already sure is there. In other words, they're not being impartial enough. The most convincing image of the "head" is on Hoaglund's website and it turns out to be a "4 frame composite", meaning he pasted 4 different pictures together in a way he thought would make it look more like a head.

Give me enough pictures of the moon and I can make you the Mona Lisa in photoshop. A lot of people don't know enough about film to really analyze it anyway. If there is a black area, like the "eye sockets" there is no information there, it's just black. There's no magic computer programs you can use that would extract information from film where there is none. What you see is what you get. Even when photo retouchers fix certain problems like "red eye" or sun glare it's an artistic interpretation. Generally they try to be as acurate as possible but they are still just making it up. Take it from one who knows lol.

Also, we have no reference for scale, we have no idea how big this "head" could be. Hell, it could be 5 feet long and wheigh 800 pounds for all we know. We just have a picture of a rock, in a field of sand, surrounded by other rocks. What we would need is an astronaut, a rover, or even just someone's boot print in the shot to give us an idea of how big it is.


reply posted on 17-10-2006 @ 03:42 PM by StellarX
Originally posted by johnlear
Hmmmmm. So on ATS we are showing photos on the moon, of a gigantic mining operation, complete with buildings, cranes, pipes, tubes, silos, tanks dust/vapor and/or smoke and ATS is still up.


ATS has hundreds of threads with pertinent threads constantly being buried beneath loads of absolute nonsense and denial. You will find the same people fleeing from the scene of truth ,when it's presented, only to observe them returning in drove some days or weeks later to launch the same type of vapid and persistent attacks on those who have discover some truth but don't know how to interpret or defend it in context. ATS, like so many other forums, seems wonderful when your willing to dig deep persistently but for most passers by it would not seem like much truth gets uncovered here that is not already being dealt with in some , possibly, obscure regular media outlet or dedicated site . Those photo's you presented are great but in four months time they will probably be long lost in clutter with the same old people loudly denying that there is anything irregular on the Moon.....

But Richard Hoagland is showing an alleged picture of a skull, and his site is down.

What is wrong with this picture?


Coast to Coast has a rather massive audience and they almost always overwhelm or crash most sites they visit en mass so it's not irregular for modem users or others to experience some problems for at least some time after a broadcast.... That being said i obviously don't think this is a PTB intervention of any sort! Richards site will always be under attack as it's not a forum where you can pay ( and if the FBI& CIA had hundreds of AMERICAN editors and journalist- 500 admitted in one senate investigation- on the payroll at one time not so long ago ) disinformation agents to do their thing. We can only imagine what they can do in the Internet age where it would be tremendously hard to discover the money trail....

While i like what you have to say ( i refuse to close my mind to such possibilities) i must admit to not knowing how to investigate your more 'out there' (souls , many aliens races currently interacting etc) claims in any useful way just yet so i primarily rely on people like Richard Hoagland who always provides me with a sequence of events and linked material as to how they arrived at their conclusions which i can then work trough and judge for myself

As far as i could discover you are not very specific ( as i understand that can get very dangerous very fast for some more well known individuals) on some of the more complex issues with material i can follow up on but maybe i just did not do my share or do not understand enough to have yet discovered the right questions to ask based on your hints. Whatever the case may be i understand what Alex Jones, Richard Hoagland, William Blum, Noam Chomsky, J.P Skipper, Kurt Nimmo, John Kaminski, Jeff Rense, John Pilger, Michael Parenti, David Icke, Tom Van Flandern ( well to a large extent anyways ) and many many others have to say and maybe in some years time i will have the knowledge to begin to evaluate you more fairly.

Stellar


reply posted on 17-10-2006 @ 03:55 PM by denythestatusquo
Originally posted by FiFtEeN
www.coasttocoastam.com...

Although i am not know to be a debunker if you look to the right of the so called head you will see a can of soda.

LOL


What kind is it? If you can figure out the brand then just think of what you could sell the picture for? Advertisers would love it.




reply posted on 17-10-2006 @ 04:00 PM by Shadowflux
Lazarus,

You're right, I didn't rule out the fact that could be a head of a humanoid type robot that doesn't really resemble humans. Although given the proportions on the head it would be rather funny looking. My anaysis was meant to show that Hoagland's evidence is neither scientific nor is it unbiased. In my professional opinion his most "convincing evidence" has been so heavily doctored as to be utterly useless. That isn't to say that Hoagland did it maliciously to perpetrate a hoax, I think he's just over zealous and can't approach this evidence in an impartial manner.

I love how there're so many websites with photos of Lunar and Martian abnormalities then proceed to change the colors, blow out the light and dark levels, spin it around, zoom in on it, change the colors again, make it a negative and then expect us to see somthing we didn't see before. Photoshop is a powerful tool but it still runs on mathematical algorithms, everything you do, like adjusting the levels or color saturation, has to be delicate or the algorithms will take it all too far.

To properly analyze a photograph you have to have a fundemental understanding of what you're looking at, in this case it's skulls and rocks. To make an unbiased analysis you should do very little "enhancing" to the picture. Maybe correct the light balance, maybe enlarge it, but that's it. You want to look at the way the light plays on the object, the shadows it casts, the brightest highlites and the darkest shadows, etc. You want to try and figure out what is a shadowed side of a round object and what is a shadow cast on the ground beneath the object.

The colors Hoagland mentioned, like the red "lips" are a result of pushing the color "enhancement" too far. You can use an adjustment in photoshop called "Hue/Saturation". Try it on any picture you want, if you push the saturation or the Hue bar too far the colors will become blown out. In fact, if you push it far enough you reach a range of colors known as "Illegal Colors". Illegal Colors are those that will not print, they exist only because the monitor is essentially making them brighter than would be posisble in reality. A lot of web graphics and video games animations use illegal colors becasue they don't need to worry about printing. You can check if your colors are legal by typing Crtl+Y in Photoshop and you will see the difference.

Printers print with CMYK, that is to say the printers use four colors to create all the colors in the picture. Monitors use RGB, or just three colros to create all the colors you see. If you were to work only in legal colors the image on your screen may seem a bit dull but when it prints out it looks exactly the way you'd want it. Trust me, it can be a very frusterating problem.

When you take into account the play of light and shadow I would have to rule that this is not a head at all but a rock, that due to the position of the light source, the angle of the shot and the quality of the film looks a lot like a head.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 10 days ago with 65 member flags
Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 18 days ago with 60 member flags
UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 13 days ago with 31 member flags
The Aurora, Texas UFO Incident (1897)
  Posted 4 days ago with 27 member flags
Jacques Vallee: Implications of UFO Phenomena - Thinking Allowed.
  Posted 2 days ago with 23 member flags
UFO above Wadden Sea
  Posted 12 days ago with 14 member flags