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.

 

NASA´s Virtual Tour Of The FAR SIDE Of The Moon (yeehar)

page: 6
62
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MoonMine
 

Just to clarify: I'm not implying that you have done anything to the images from WW. What I'm saying is that you have to be careful about what appears on WW. The images from within WW are distorted. When you get "up close and personal" to the features on the surface all you are really doing is zooming in on the image.

Some of the images I'm showing are the original Clementine images as used in WW. Some are from other sources. I'm showing them to demonstrate that sometimes the Clementine image isn't very good. Using the "true color" image from Clementine can also be deceptive, making mineral deposits appear to be "anomolies". Zooming in too much will also cause problems. I know the anomolies are more fun but in the interest of denying ingorance, I'm presenting other views of the same features.


Here is the Lunar Orbiter image of your latest presentation. In this case, the Clementine image is really pretty awful. You can see it is an old, eroded crater which has been overlapped by a more recent one. The fresher material on the surface of the newer crater causes the coloration of the Clementine image.


[edit on 18-10-2008 by Phage]




posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Interesting thread - thanks.

I think we are just seeing mostly artifacts & errors in the software and images. Some of these look similar to artifacts in my own digital cameras when the CCD or software can't handle the brightness. As most of you know each pixel has to be interpreted then given a value and those that fall outside the parameters sometimes get clipped or obfuscated.

I suppose if we really wanted to investigate these images we could download the flat raw versions and then compare. Remember these are 2d images texture mapped or stretched over a 3d object - there's going to be more errors there.

So, somebody had to build a 3d object with the correct dimensions of the moon and then overlay interpolated images , aka texture mapping. There may very well be some neat stuff in there, but who knows. Maybe there are parts of the 3d underlying model that protrude above some of the images. We all see the missing image spots and we don't assume they're black holes or caverns it's just missing data.

We're looking for perfection here and I'm afraid it doesn't exist yet. I suppose the creators (not god - the programmers
) could of filled in the missing spaces, but they wanted it to be more accurate rather than pleasing to the eye.

I think we need to send an email and get a professional explanation before we get too excited. Nevertheless I'll found a couple interesting blips I'll post for everyone's continued entertainment. I haven't figured out the side views yet so for now I'm just posting the top view with multiple zoom levels.

This is the Mach crater. Clearly we're seeing pixelation here in the zooms, however that doesn't mean there's not something interesting there. The red triangle is mine with the angle pointing to the anomalies or errors.




I'll start from the left object and move clockwise in the zooms.









[edit on 19-10-2008 by verylowfrequency]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by verylowfrequency
 

Here is the Clementine image that this is taken from. Again, maximum resolution and not exactly true color. Not a very good image and extreme zooming doesn't do much to help.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks for posting that, but a link to the full res version would be better - if you have it handy. For a second line - I assume that the Mach Crater is included in that image. Correct?

Now I suppose I'm going to have to look at other versions as well.

Edit: Hmm, I didn't realize my images were so brown until I saw your post - I wonder why my color is off so bad?


[edit on 19-10-2008 by verylowfrequency]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by verylowfrequency
 


Here is the link. I'm not really sure if Mach is in there, it's such a mess, but you can check the coordinates.

My version of WW shows the same color as yours. Probably another case of adjusting things to be more palatable for general consumption. This image is really pretty ugly.


I just realized the longitude number is a bit wacky because it uses an E-W scale. Zoom the image out and you'll see it does match the area in WW.


[edit on 19-10-2008 by Phage]

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Just kind of off the subject at hand,,,but still relevant I think. Why can't "We" go to the moon? I mean since there is so much speculation, Why can't a group of "Us"(meaning not NASA/Government affiliated) organize, and produce a launch, with landing/pass to the moon? Would not this give an outside verification to the support of yes they are there, or no they are not?

Just a thought...

Max



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by daddymax
 


Well I think we are heading in that direction as we have several private companies building vehicles to put objects in space/orbit. The extension of that would be to send some robots to the moon. I think we'll see for profit hotels for the moderately wealthy in orbit before we'll have rich cats going to the moon. I guess Virgin Galactic is the first step.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
Here's a closeup of what you're seeing. It is indeed the wall of a crater, but it's near clavius - I was pointing out the wrong pole. I drew a box around the crater whose rim looks like a triangle in the video.


I´m sorry, but you are missing something.

Please have another look:


At around 3:30 you will see a square tower with a huge shadow

Clear as day. Remember, amateur footage taken with a Meade telescope.

MoonMine



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddymax
Why can't "We" go to the moon? I mean since there is so much speculation, Why can't a group of "Us"(meaning not NASA/Government affiliated) organize, and produce a launch, with landing/pass to the moon? Would not this give an outside verification to the support of yes they are there, or no they are not?


Well, there is cost for one thing. Then there are dozens of regulations.

I´m sure that there are several laws which would prohibit private companies visiting the moon. National security?

MoonMine



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Does anyone else see a face here or is it just me?




And a whole lot clearer than the one one Mars I might add...

See page 4 for more.

MoonMine



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MoonMine
 


Here's a clearer image



[edit on 20-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Here's a clearer image


?? How so

Can you please explain to me why your data source is better than Clementine 40x or 30x? Aren´t those lunar orbiter images as well?

Puzzling...

MoonMine



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MoonMine
 

This is the best quality image I could find of the crater. Taken by Lunar Orbiter IV (1967)

This is the best quality image from Clementine (1994). It seems to be the same resolution used by WW.


The Clementine mission did not emphasize visual information. Its purpose was the testing of various sensors and very accurate mapping of the surface. The Lunar Orbiter missions had the purpose of looking for landing sites. The sensors available at the time were not as capable so the visual quality had to be very good. Which one do you think is clearer?

The two images are taken under different lighting conditions so the shadow patterns are different. Also, as I've said before, the Clementine images include ultraviolet wavelengths which can create the appearance of terrain which is not really there.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 02:13 AM
link   
< br />

Saw this in one of the craters near the south pole, I was going to get the Lon/Lat when my Grandson hit my keyboard and closed off a number of programmes.


Wierd "glich" in the software which produces a "hanger".
Any thoughts Moonmine?



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Hi,

just found out by this: www.shatters.net...

Really amazing software...



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MoonMine

At around 3:30 you will see a square tower with a huge shadow

Clear as day. Remember, amateur footage taken with a Meade telescope.

MoonMine

I looked twice more, all i see is the rim of newton crater right where it should be, illuminated in a way that makes it look like it's towering over the surface, because it is. The disfavorable libration of newton crater when this was taken heightens the effect as compared to the image I posted which had more favorable libration. Remember, I am not accusing the footage of being faked, I'm saying there's nothing out of the ordinary contained in the image. It looks odd to the lay person because of the lighting conditions, libration, and low magnification, but higher magnification, better lighting, and libration reveals the true nature of the "tower" as a crater rim. See how even in favorable lighting the crater rim still casts a considerable shadow into the crater:
www.damianpeach.com...



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   
MoonMine,

check this thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Also, check the ATS MIX show for John Lear... he explain the blue dots.

(Thats a long read... too bad i caught that up so late yesterday)

Have you checked 'Celestia' yet?

[]´s

[edit on 22-10-2008 by RobertPaulsim]



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by RobertPaulsim
 


Isn't it possible that they edit out anything indiscriminating before they release
imaging software?



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


that pic has some very interesting anomalies in it.
gotta love graphics software!



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join