Lunar Sightings Research Images, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times


reply posted on 28-12-2007 @ 12:16 PM by lunarSightings
Consider the following simulation of detail loss:



Note further that image (a) with reasonable detail can even confuse the eye. Note the pork chop shape on the left edge of (c) and how it's not so visible in (a). Also note the hairpin upside down U or V shape top center of (c). It's clearly evident from (a) that this is not manmade but instead geological terrain that has been visually emphasized from radical enlargement.

With image (c) alone, it would be difficult to determine if there were intentionally designed structures. Image (c) leaves the casual viewer with the impression of seeing only a bunch of fuzzy dots.

In contrast to image (c) above, this higher contrast image of another object on the moon

has more detail and is not suffering so badly from a low resolution, fuzzy dot appearance as in (c) above.

Still, it's 'fuzzy' and to all those wasting their time reading this thread looking for Kodak Moment / Time Magazine Photo of the Year images, I offer the following viewpoint:

The image above (my ATS avatar) is a shape, or collection of shapes that we are visually unfamiliar with and, considering the magnification of the telephoto lens (diminishing depth perception) and loss of color, makes it even more difficult to distinguish natural from 'unnatural' shape forms.

So, if you find yourself checking these kinds of threads and always feel inclined to offer kind advice that attempts to keep the uneducated masses in 'logic' check, how about seriously taking the time to carefully review not only the images presented, but have a look yourself at the archived imagery. Please refrain from commenting from the armchair - get involved or just sit back and watch.


reply posted on 29-12-2007 @ 01:56 AM by mikesingh
reply to post by Nohup


Good God! You sounded more like a 60s record player with the needle stuck in the groove, than anything worth while to be pondered upon! A rather pedestrian argument! Like proving Jesus existed. Any proof? Nix!

But you go to church, huh? Unless you are an atheist. So your lame duck argument that the existence of aliens should be proved beyond doubt first, before 'jumping' to an intelligent design explanation of anomalies on the Moon, is beyond bizarre!

As your banal argument suggests, the pope should be put away in a cellar, the churches should be brought down, and anything concerning Jesus should be banned from discussion until the reality of Jesus is proved beyond doubt! Otherwise the Vatican is just a pile of rocks!

That said, on what do you base your verbose arguments? Why is the necessity to prove that aliens exist, before one can embark on any analysis of anomalies on the Moon (Or Solar System)? There is another line of thought that black projects are already mining the Moon! Can you prove that this is not already happening? Do you profess to have inside knowlede of EVERYTHING that's going on?

In other words, why should those 'artificial structures' (If they are artificial) be made by aliens? They could very well belong to black projects.

Cheers!



reply posted on 29-12-2007 @ 07:45 AM by mikesingh
reply to post by sherpa



Hi sherpa! Those images are pretty intriguing! But I think that string-like object is nothing but a small strand of wool or something similar present during processing. Do you remember zorgon's post where he had shown a mosaic of Moon pictures placed on a huge globe from which photographs were being taken? I think it's probably during this procedure that a strand got stuck on the globe due to some electrostatic effect, before the photograph was taken.

Why the heck don't they scrub and clean the darn imaging lab before taking photographs??

Cheers!


reply posted on 29-12-2007 @ 08:31 AM by sherpa
reply to post by mikesingh



Thanks mike for your comment.

I think it's probably during this procedure that a strand got stuck on the globe due to some electrostatic effect, before the photograph was taken.


And yet the strand is present in both images except they are clearly different the original book scan is thicker and less spindly than the later image, if this was an accidental contamination than why is it such a complicated shape why not just a strand of which there is evidence of over the full size image and easily identifiable as such.

I would strongly suggest they are not the same generation scan and if that is the case what are the odds for having so similiar a strand in both copies millions to one perhaps.

Ok here is my take, I think the anomaly does exist in the original but when the next generation print was produced it was deliberately obscured so someone went to the trouble of "creating" a lint faxcimile of it for the sole reason of convincing anyone looking at the two images side by side that a piece of cotton strand was all there was there in first place.

Why would they go to this trouble ?, I think that maybe the original book scan slipped through the net and was already in circulation in the book so plausable deniability could be created by including something that was similiar to but looked exactly like a piece of cotton in knots for the later scans, in fact in much later scans it dissapears altogether as in this example.

In fact the later the example of this image and many others the less detail there is, just look at the Clementine dataset compared to the early lunar orbitor and Apollo images, which I am sure you have, just to illustrate my point.

Is it time to head for the bar yet ? perhaps I can convince you after a few beers.


reply posted on 29-12-2007 @ 11:13 AM by ArMaP
reply to post by sherpa



Could you (or somebody else) point where in the photo is (or should be) that "lace"?

I could never understand where I should look for it in the complete photo.


reply posted on 29-12-2007 @ 11:23 AM by sherpa
reply to post by spikedmilk



Just so I'm clear, this is the genuine 'anomaly' correct? And do we have a scale on this guy?


Yes that is the original from the book scan.

Regarding scale I would suggest several kilometers across so it is doubtfull that it is some indigenous macro lifeform.


reply posted on 29-12-2007 @ 11:36 AM by sherpa
reply to post by ArMaP



I could never understand where I should look for it in the complete photo.


Do you have a copy of the hi-res version because if you have not than you will not see it, if you do have a hi-res copy than you should have no trouble finding it unless you are pressed for time that is,


reply posted on 29-12-2007 @ 11:47 AM by ArMaP
reply to post by sherpa



The image I have is 4400 x 4600 pixels. Is it good enough?

And if it is good enough, where should I look?

Thanks.


reply posted on 29-12-2007 @ 12:00 PM by sherpa
reply to post by lunarSightings



Is there any way you can upload the version you ordered? If you ordered it from LPI, did they post it up on an FTP folder - giving you a link? I'd like to get my hands on the original


They did not post to an FTP folder, the 70mm negative is pulled and sent to one of the approved labs for scanning in my case they gave me a link to their website to download, the link is dead now for obvious reasons.

You could of course order a copy yourself, there is a choice of labs you could use I used Pounds Labs they were by far the cheapest, whether there would be a difference in quality between the labs I could not tell having used just the one.

I am told this copy is used for all JSC prints including there own but I wonder.



reply posted on 29-12-2007 @ 12:11 PM by sherpa
reply to post by ArMaP



Sounds good enough.

Bear with me I am trying to upload a version that is marked for location at photobucket.


reply posted on 29-12-2007 @ 12:14 PM by lunarSightings
Originally posted by sherpa
reply to
post by lunarSightings



Is there any way you can upload the version you ordered? If you ordered it from LPI, did they post it up on an FTP folder - giving you a link? I'd like to get my hands on the original


They did not post to an FTP folder, the 70mm negative is pulled and sent to one of the approved labs for scanning in my case they gave me a link to their website to download, the link is dead now for obvious reasons.

You could of course order a copy yourself, there is a choice of labs you could use I used Pounds Labs they were by far the cheapest, whether there would be a difference in quality between the labs I could not tell having used just the one.

I am told this copy is used for all JSC prints including there own but I wonder.



www.poundslabs.com...

Is this them? What's the procedure? If that's the right company (link above) I don't see any references to NASA archives and the resulting service.

I usually get all my digitals from LPI (ain't easy... have to keep a nice tone.. and keep bugging them over and over without pissing them off... helps to know someone)


reply posted on 29-12-2007 @ 12:14 PM by sherpa
reply to post by ArMaP



Ok, I have done that.

The red spot marks the location.





reply posted on 29-12-2007 @ 12:25 PM by sherpa
reply to post by lunarSightings




Is this them? What's the procedure? If that's the right company (link above) I don't see any references to NASA archives and the resulting service.


Yes the guy there is Lori Mitchel, nice guy, you would have to email them with the following:

1. Negative size = 70mm

2. Size print or scan you wish to obtain

3. If you want a scan, do you want it on CD or download it from an ftp site

4. If you elect to receive a print or scan on CD, let the labs know where you are (country).



Once you have received the price quote you will need to send mary.j.russell-1@nasa.gov an email and include the following information in that email:



1. Your name, address, telephone number and email address

2. Photo id: AS8-12-2209

3. Name of lab selected


Pounds labs is the place believe it or not.


reply posted on 29-12-2007 @ 12:25 PM by ArMaP
reply to post by sherpa



Thanks sherpa.

I promise I will follow all the links you post in the future.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 7 days ago with 65 member flags
Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 15 days ago with 60 member flags
UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 10 days ago with 31 member flags
The Dyatlov Pass Incident--Russia\'s Mountain of Death
  Posted 17 days ago with 28 member flags
The Aurora, Texas UFO Incident (1897)
  Posted 1 days ago with 25 member flags