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.

 

Revealed for the First Time Color Images of the Moon from Clementine Satellite

page: 11
25
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Here is an interesting picture taken by apollo 15 of aristarchus crater. This picture seems to be taken from the module and is apparently in color, except for the moon which is gray.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

My question is, what are these blue lights we see on the clementine pictures, transient phenomena , false colors or what?

One more question. The center of the crater seems quite bright. This can also be seen on this next picture. ???
www.hq.nasa.gov...

And for fun, in the hubble picture when you follow the "road" to the right of the crater it seems to end in the lower part of the crater rim and there seems to be a donut tower. But ok, at 3h00 I see a gray's face, at 4h00 a cat face, at 5h00 a dog face (not this good on this picture, look on the picture of zorgon's last post)

imgsrc.hubblesite.org...




posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
The Everchanging Face of Tsiolkovsky Crater Ship

I made this little film strip of the various attempts made over the years, to hide the what's under the pasted on, airbrushed, texturized and so on, ship that's in Tsiolkovsky Crater. It's really quite fun, like a trip through time and various "techniques" for obscuring photographic evidence. Notice how in some cases it has one foot, in others, two feet, in others, no feet, in others big/tall towers, in others, no towers and the whole thing is an averaged out range of mountains. It's absolutely fascinating!




posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Nothing that you said shows that the photos you and others are posting were taken using the broadband filter, the only filter on that camera capable of giving us a colour image like what we would see if we were there.


So you are disputing the Department of Defense official report on the cameras now?

Incredible!!



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by looofo
My question is, what are these blue lights we see on the clementine pictures, transient phenomena , false colors or what?

One more question. The center of the crater seems quite bright. This can also be seen on this next picture. ???


Has anyone noticed that the photos of Aristarchus that are bright...also show the face of it and surrounding area to have what appear to be wispy, cloud like translucent streamers? Look at the "Hubble" photo

Do you see the way it looks like its double exposed? Have a look back on page one at the two blue images as well.




The other image you posted, here is a clip showing white wispy "clouds covering the black outline and you can see the outline beneath the "cloud"




I am gathering stuff for an Aristarchus Crater release but there is so much data it will take a lot of time



[edit on 18-12-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by ArMaP
Nothing that you said shows that the photos you and others are posting were taken using the broadband filter, the only filter on that camera capable of giving us a colour image like what we would see if we were there.


So you are disputing the Department of Defense official report on the cameras now?

Incredible!!

No, I am not disputing the Department of Defense report, in fact I used that information to reach the conclusion that the UV/Vis camera could really take photos with the colours like we see them.

I posted more or less the same information that you posted, but apparently I have a different interpretation of their words.

But I cannot see anywhere a reference to the filters used. That camera had 6 filters, one of those filters could "see" the light as we see it, but I still do not know if that was the filter the camera used to take these photos or not.

Just that, nothing incredible.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Notice how in some cases it has one foot, in others, two feet, in others, no feet, in others big/tall towers, in others, no towers and the whole thing is an averaged out range of mountains.

I made this animation using some of the photos you posted, the ones that were taken in a 90º (or near 90º) angle, and to me it looks the same, maybe I misunderstood what you said.

Some images were rotated 180º, one was rotated 195º, if I am not mistaken.




posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Awww, I'm ashamed of ya, ArMap. You missed the rest of the pics. Naturally some of the manips are going to use similar photos as the base. For example, one photo is taken and camoflaged. Then the next few examples are the same. Then later, they begin to change and a couple of those are copies of each other. They tried, they really did, but just tracking the heighth of the tower thing on it, is enough to see that thing has went from being perched on top to laying flat on the ground, to being nearly or completely invisible.

Not only that, in at least three of those photos the "ghost" foot is visible, although barely. It's pretty obvious two of the raised towers on the aft and fore positions are satellite type dishes. and the third pic down from the top, actually has deliberate obscuring that is even visible to the naked eye without having to lighten or contrast or anything else for that matter. Shame, shame, ArMap. Shaaaame.


[edit on 18-12-2006 by undo]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Awww, I'm ashamed of ya, ArMap. You missed the rest of the pics.

Those were the only ones I could use, I am not a graphic artist with the knowledge to change the perspective of the other photos, just a programmer, and I made that animation more to see if I could see anything or not.

[edit on 18/12/2006 by ArMaP]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Interesting. One is listed as false color, the other is listed as albedo (natural color). so, does this mean the albedo (natural color) is really not natural color, even though it says it is ?

I have finally an answer to that question, given by someone from the USGS (I do not post the name because I did not ask permission to post that information in a forum, I only remembered that now)

This is the answer to my question about the colours.


The "Color Albedo" or "Natural Color" products are a combination of bands 1, 3 and 5 from the Clementine UVVIS Multi-Band dataset. These certainly are "enhanced" color products meant to emphasize subtle tonal differences among various features. They do not show colors as a person would actually see them.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   
ArMap,

You said that she said


The "Color Albedo" or "Natural Color" products are a combination of bands 1, 3 and 5 from the Clementine UVVIS Multi-Band dataset. These certainly are "enhanced" color products meant to emphasize subtle tonal differences among various features. They do not show colors as a person would actually see them.

My response:

Fair enough. I accept that description. Do you have anyway to represent how a 1, 3, 5 pic of say, your front yard would look?



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I have finally an answer to that question, given by someone from the USGS (I do not post the name because I did not ask permission to post that information in a forum, I only remembered that now)

FWIW I just gave jra a WATS for pointing this out on the very first page and you a WATS for making an effort to get official confirmation.


I believe that's mate Zorgon.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Like I have been saying you are looking @ holograms real or not real some holograms stealth the surface and some do not. We are looking @ intelligence way beyond our comprehension. Lets call them Moonbies they understand our human eyesight frequency range or visual capacity as well as our hearing frequency range. Moonbies as well as we humans on Earth understand that cats , owls and Eagles etc. can see better in the infared range then we humans on Earth. The Moonbies can take full advantage of this knowledge and use it to their advantage to hide things from us humans on the surface or inner Moon. The Moonbies know that the infrared spectrum have rays that have longer wavelengths than the red part of the visible spectrum and I almost forgot, and shorter than those of microwaves out there in forever and ever land. If you ever look at infrared photos taken of the Earth, Planets or Moons in our Solar System you are entering into another realm or I should say, dimensional Worlds. Moonbies, a term I pegged as humanoid like or alien beings living or using the Earth's Moon as a base of operations. Rik Riley



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saviour Of The Real

Originally posted by ArMaP
I have finally an answer to that question, given by someone from the USGS (I do not post the name because I did not ask permission to post that information in a forum, I only remembered that now)

FWIW I just gave jra a WATS for pointing this out on the very first page and you a WATS for making an effort to get official confirmation.


I believe that's mate Zorgon.


Oh I dunno about that. If the only difference is we can tell things apart a bit better, I don't think that counts as being some major alteration to the things we are seeing (As far as colors go. As far as all the camoflage applied to these pics, that's a different story)

[edit on 19-12-2006 by undo]



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
This is the answer to my question about the colours.


LOL well I am glad your question was answered by the form letter that I am sure everyone got from the curator. Its not like she was hard to find, being on the front page of the mapper with an invitation to ask questions. BTW she was quite pleased with the attention they have been receiving the last few days


So Herr ArMap, now that YOU personally have satisfied yourself about the color to your satisfaction, perhaps you can now join the discussion about what is IN the images? And what they represent? And why there are so many signs of editing?

Now we can always go to gray scale... wanna bet the anomalies are still there?



Funny thing is... its even clearer in b&w...

[edit on 19-12-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
So Herr ArMap, now that YOU personally have satisfied yourself about the color to your satisfaction, perhaps you can now join the discussion about what is IN the images? And what they represent? And why there are so many signs of editing?


Ah yes indeed! There are many anomalies in these pics which are "colour independent"
. They are just alot more easier to see.

One of the most interesting things is that there are images with, extremely varied terrain in the same area. It's not consistant, and doesn't make much sense. You can be sure that the Moon does not look like the grey-dustball stereotype we're fed with, and the same goes for Mars. They are very rich and diverse bodies.



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
UNDO how the hell can you see these sort of things there is absoluetly nothing in any of the pics you have posted.
No offence but you are about 1000x worse than Hoagland. At least what Hoagland shows actually resembles what he says.
I mean how the hell can a crater float??????????? I'd like an awnser?

[edit on 19-12-2006 by SKUNK]



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SKUNK
UNDO how the hell can you see these sort of things there is absoluetly nothing in any of the pics you have posted.
No offence but you are about 1000x worse than Hoagland. At least what Hoagland shows actually resembles what he says.
I mean how the hell can a crater float??????????? I'd like an awnser?

[edit on 19-12-2006 by SKUNK]


Ask nicely and I'll attempt to answer it. I don't take kindly to being yelled at, thank you very much. If you want to know, ask like most people do when they want to know something. You act like i'm trying to steal your birthday.



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Take a deep breath and relax before posting again please.
This is a FRIENDLY DISCUSSION and or debate that will be carried out the "ATS way" which means courtesy and TOPICAL focus at all times.

There is no need for comparing anyone to anyone else in this discussion, the topic is the moon, the pictures of it and the anomolies within the pictures. There is no "personality" in any of that.


This thread has been a pretty GOOD example of how people can debate a data set while remaining polite and ON TOPIC. It will not be derailed by "personality focus" now.

Springer...



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I didn't mean to offend you UNDO.
I've followed this thread from the beggining.
Can you explain to me please these anomalies.
Thx



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Skunk,

i can try.

Some of the craters are not craters. They are disguised as craters. A texturized surface has been applied to make them look like craters, I guess. Some are so far above the surface that their shadows can be seen on the ground, not the rim wall but the "Crater" itself. This was later confirmed when I viewed a pic john lear had found from the original apollo missions , in which are a few classic disks, flitting about, leaving tidy little jetson like contrails.
In the newer colorized version, these contrail clouds are typically little white puffs, that are round to oblong in shape and almost appear as tiny points of light when the sun hits them. Thus several of the small lights in the pics are actually little puffy contrails. Some contrails are long clouds that meet the disk as it rises.

I have a series of examples you can see here:
thestargates.com...
thestargates.com...
thestargates.com...
thestargates.com...
thestargates.com...



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join