Undebatable PROOF that we are not being told everything about the moon, page 7

privacy

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 56 times

reply posted on 5-3-2009 @ 07:21 PM by iWork4NWO

Originally posted by Anubis3.14
Try this.

First, go to the following site:

www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

Now here are the settings:
Desired Resolution: 1 pixel = 1 kilometer
- Image Size = 768x768
- Latitude = -70 (as in minus 70)
- Longitude = 137
Leave everything else alone and click the “Use lat/long” button.

Tell me what you see?

Now, if anyone makes any BS excuses , then that will ensure me that they are hired in some way, or are working for the people covering this.

WHOOA WTF

reply posted on 5-3-2009 @ 07:55 PM by Xtraeme

Originally posted by Anubis3.14
In 1994, the US Navy sent a satellite called Clementine to the moon to image it for two months. During that time, the satellite took 1.8 million images. Out of those images, 170,000 images were made available to the public. Did you say we can see 95%?

You're correct. As stated on cmf.nrl.navy.mil only 170,000 of 1.8 million images are available through the Clementine Lunar Image Browser. However a number of the pictures are redundant (duplicate pictures of the same location) and others represent pictures in the infra-red and UV spectrum. If you want all 1.8 million images (scroll to the bottom) you can order them from the NASA store or, as ArMaP pointed out, if you're willing to spare the bandwidth you can grab all 88 CDs here.

You know, its comments like this that make me wonder if they hire people to post on here and try there best to keep things covered up.

As far as I'm concerned UFOs are a real phenomenon and as such I strongly doubt NASA would want anything to do with me.

Now here are the settings:
Desired Resolution: 1 pixel = 1 kilometer
- Image Size = 768x768
- Latitude = -70 (as in minus 70)
- Longitude = 137
Leave everything else alone and click the “Use lat/long” button.

Tell me what you see?

Tap dancing Christ on a crutch. Someone call Scully! Okay in all seriousness I see a smudge. Bizarre? Somewhat, could be an imperfection in the CCD; could have been introduced when they compressed the image with the Los Alamos National Laboratories codec; could have happened when the program creating the mosaic stitched two adjacent frames together; lots of possibilities really. My recommendation, if available, find the uncompressed version of the images and compare them. If that fails point a telescope up at the sky. That smudge is a 158 pixels across. Since each pixel represents 1km it means whatever's beneath the smudge is ~98 miles across. You should be able to see something that large from a ground based telescope.

Now, if anyone makes any BS excuses , then that will ensure me that they are hired in some way, or are working for the people covering this.

In my defense the reason I don't believe this is indicative of a cover-up is because any professional artist would have used the clone stamp tool not the smudge tool.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply posted on 5-3-2009 @ 07:59 PM by ArMaP

reply to post by AlienChaser

That site is not easy to navigate, it always takes me some time before I can find what I want.

That area is just north of Zeeman crater, and these are the images for that area.

Image 1
Image 2

Or you can use NASA Worldwind, in which we can see it like this.

reply posted on 5-3-2009 @ 08:16 PM by AlienChaser

I think that this First Image (with the censor) is from a different angle than either image on or image two from above.
To me in the censored image it looks like the land rises behind it and the camera is more across a valley as the land near the camera blurs downward. almost that there is a structure or mabey an entrance there. In the other two the shots apear more birdseye This One The anomaly is dark but still there

But again my problem with censors is that when you are in control of the media and you are hiding something why release it at all. We have no way of knowing what the actual pictures are, just throw it out and tells us thats all, why release a censor?

reply posted on 5-3-2009 @ 08:37 PM by Xtraeme

reply to post by Anubis3.14

Ah ha! I think I figured out why we're seeing the smudge. Several of the files are damaged.

It occasionally throws an error that reads,

ERROR! in tweak-zone
Tweaked 10 times and then gave up
file is lua0945c.082
path is /archive/projects/clementine/reformatted/lun082/luxxxxxx/luxxxxxc/luxxxxxc.tar
/afs/cmf/www/clementine/scripts/newrowcol 320 162 lu415.flt
Fileready is D

What this suggests is that it's digging directly in to the tar archive file and trying to fetch the .flt which represents the image filter. Since it can't do that it interpolates the data on the edge of adjacent frame (n-1) to the next frame (n+1), making it look like a smudge.

reply posted on 5-3-2009 @ 08:40 PM by SaviorComplex

reply to post by Xtraeme

GASP! You and ArMAP are giving explanations that don't support a conspiracy! This proves you are working for NASA!!!!!!

reply posted on 5-3-2009 @ 08:51 PM by dragonridr

Here is some Hi RES pictures for you taken by the Japanese. No alien bases but very cool photos none the less.

www.selene.jaxa.jp...

reply posted on 5-3-2009 @ 09:12 PM by Wormwood Squirm

reply to post by InfaRedMan

Perhaps as a side effect the Japanese are on a mission to populate Google Moon with high res shots.

reply posted on 5-3-2009 @ 09:43 PM by Anubis3.14

www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

try these settings below, with the site above.

Desired Resolution: 1 pixel = 1 kilometer
- Image Size = 768x768
- Latitude = 0
- Longitude = 318

Desired Resolution: 1 pixel = 1 kilometer
- Image Size = 768x768
- Latitude = 64
- Longitude = 265

Desired Resolution: 1 pixel = 1 kilometer
- Image Size = 768x768
- Latitude = -72
- Longitude = 108

Desired Resolution: 1 pixel = 1 kilometer
- Image Size = 768x768
- Latitude = 70
- Longitude = 240

Debunk away my little skeptics.

reply posted on 5-3-2009 @ 09:46 PM by voodoom

you can see that the north and south poles of the moon are are very different from each other. appears to be one large, perfect circle crater on the directly on the north pole. the south pole seems to have few craters and more mountains. almost looks like a aerial view of a volcano at the south pole. the dark side of the moon is unlike any planetary motion in our solar system and i have always wondered how.

reply posted on 5-3-2009 @ 09:47 PM by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Anubis3.14
Debunk away my little skeptics.

My, what a condescending attitude you have.

So, how do you explain those blurred images?

reply posted on 5-3-2009 @ 09:54 PM by Xtraeme

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
reply to post by Xtraeme

GASP! You and ArMAP are giving explanations that don't support a conspiracy! This proves you are working for NASA!!!!!!

Uh oh, does this mean I'm gonna get banned?

The few people I know that have worked at NASA are big time engineering nerds. When I was in college one of the professors would regularly regale us with stories about his time at Goddard Space Center back in the early '70s programming the real-time operating systems for two unmanned spacecrafts (in assembly no less). If he had known about a secret program he would have been the first to blow the whistle.

There may well be data NASA has chosen not to share with the public, but an outright cover-up? Things of that nature tend to leak, especially as people are added. I think the biggest problem UFO advocates have to face is that the government may very well be just as much in the dark as the rest of us.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply posted on 5-3-2009 @ 09:56 PM by Anubis3.14

Well, heres the Official Explanation

www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

Im sorry, but thats laughable.

And Come on, thats clearly a cut and paste, LOL.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Anubis3.14]

reply posted on 5-3-2009 @ 10:29 PM by Xtraeme

Originally posted by Anubis3.14
Well, heres the Official Explanation

www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

Im sorry, but thats laughable.

So are you calling in to question the following paragraph?

The only anomalies associated with these images are from the lossy image compression used and that should be inconsequential. If there are anomalies in the browser images, try viewing these low level images to clarify the terrain. This data set is in the public domain.

If so, why? Image compression does create small artifacts, though they tend to be uniform across the whole image, which is definitely not the case with the first image you called out.

As for the second part it's an entirely reasonable statement. As a matter of fact that's the underlying problem you're seeing. There's missing data. Think about it this way. When you ask for a 768x768 image and you ask for it at 1 pixel per kilometer some of the component images aren't present. So when it constructs the composite image, rather than leave sections black, it tweens from one frame to the next to approximate what it might look like.

To prove this to yourself, lets go to one of the anomalies:

Desired Resolution: 1 pixel = 1 kilometer
- Image Size = 768x768
- Latitude = 0
- Longitude = 318

Now click on the lower left hand corner of the image. Notice that this image has a higher resolution than the 768x768 1 pixel = 1 kilometer. That's because the native data is 1 pixel ~= 100 meters.

What that means is for 1 pixel in the 768x768; 1 pixel = 1 kilometer; scenario that 1 pixel contains information from 10 pixels in the (native data) 384 x 288 pixels; 1 pixel = 100m; image.

Now click the right arrow about 7 times. You should get "this image is unavailable." Think about that. Rather than throw out all the data it has to interpolate the data for one whole missing longitudinal 38.4 x 28.8 pixel / km segment which doesn't exist! This is why we get vertical banding. We get a fuzzy image whenever one pixel isn't modulo 10 and there's missing data adjacent to that pixel. To do smooth bicubic scaling it samples the information from adjacent pixels and since the adjacent component image is missing the sampling isn't terribly accurate.

And Come on, thats clearly a cut and paste, LOL.

Not sure I follow.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply posted on 5-3-2009 @ 10:31 PM by Dramey

great outside of the box thinking

its not exactly proof, as we still have nothing solid, but you do have something that is pretty much inarguable in my eyes

i know many people will argue it, but theres really no logic in arguing it for the most part, i mean like you said, if you got nothing to hide, why hide it, yet we are constantly being shown that there are things being hidden and not fully open

maybe we still dont know what is going on, but we know somethings going on, whether anyone here on earth knows it or not

reply posted on 5-3-2009 @ 10:35 PM by Jay-in-AR

Any photo that is pixelated at a rate of one per kilometer is going to be screwy.
I can't believe people would even use that argument. It doesn't make sense. Think about it in terms of here on Earth. A kilometer is very big.

Of course you are going to have missing data. And interpolation.
I wouldn't expect otherwise. Hell, the photo could look like the milennium falcon and I would disregard it. You need much, much better resolution. (The millenium falcon comment was obviously an exaggeration)

reply posted on 5-3-2009 @ 11:42 PM by lunarminer

I would just like to say that the US has in fact mapped the entire surface of the moon. The Clementine space probe was the first to capture images of the lunar poles, which were one of the few areas left that we had no images of. Following up Clementine, we sent the Lunar Prospector whose sole mission was to map the entire surface of the moon and to look for traces of hydrogen which could indicate water.

There are a host of reasons why the government might not share the images that they have of the moon. Even though numerous space treaties that we have signed require full disclosure of all discoveries.

One of these reasons is mineral and natural resources. If there is water on the moon then it is going to be a very valuable comodotie. With NASA intending on a lunar return, they may want to locate a base near a water deposit. It may be wise not to tip our hand.

In addition to water, there are other valuables on the moon. One of these is Helium 3 which could be used as fuel in fusion reactors. This particular isotope of Helium is very rare and is almost completely absent on earth. It is estimated that a single ounce of He3 could be worth millions of dollars. So, we may not want to share the best places to find He3 on the moon.

Then there are the more basic valuable elements. Platinum, aluminum, magnesium, titanium, and yes even gold. These exist in abundance on the moon. We don't know if there are large deposits of relatively pure metals on the moon. We also don't know what the geology markers might be for such deposits. It is very possible that NASA has already worked some of this out and therefore does not want to share this info.

Then of course there is the possibility that the US, and other countries like Russia, may have a secret military presence on the moon. We certainly have the technology to do it, and we have the deep pockets, and the military has the will. So, who knows what we may have put up there? It would not be a good idea to let people browse the moon pics and stumble upon a missile base, or a mining operation.

It is my opinion that some of that has already happened. If you want to make your hair standup do a google search on Project Horizon. This is the project that provided NASA with the technology to go to the moon in the 1960's. It was formally proposed in the mid-1950's and was headed by Dr. Werner Von Braun. No, I don't think that it was a coincidence.

reply posted on 5-3-2009 @ 11:49 PM by dalepmay

reply to post by king9072

reply to post by king9072

Not so fast.....consider the distance between the Earth and the Moon. The satellites that map the Earth are orbiting the Earth, at a distance of anywhere between 1,200 miles and 22,000 miles. The Moon's average distance from the Earth is 238,000 miles. So, the Earth-orbiting (and MAPPING) satellites that are closest to the moon are about 216,000 miles from the moon.

So, you are saying that mapping the Moon would be "just as easily" as mapping the Earth? So a camera can see something at 216,000 miles just as easily as it can see something at 22,000 miles, or even 1,200 miles? No consider that the same region of the moon is always facing the Earth.

It's basic math, not "just as easily"

reply posted on 6-3-2009 @ 03:41 AM by mckyle

Originally posted by Kandinsky

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
This is great proof NASA lie and show crap! These images are blurry as hell, and the black boxes on it are laughable. The blocky unclear and inadequate moon photos ARE proof of a cover up by the masters of mind manipulation.

The world is round and the moon is artificial and inhabited.
wZn
To summarize, NASA have created the most elaborate hoax imaginable.

They've hidden the secret of an inhabited Moon for decades, but failed at the elementary level. The choreography of televised Apollo launches and the publications of peer-reviewed papers on the results of such missions are all a lie. The silence of thousands of NASA employees has been compromised by 'blocky, unclear and inadequate' photos released by NASA.

Yes, they're all in on it.

The Conspirators Guide

* Anyone telling the truth is obviously a liar
* Anyone Lying is obviously hiding the truth
* The more a fact is supported, the more obvious it is that "they" are trying to cover up something
* The only real facts are those unsupported and unsubstantiated
* You can't trust government, anyone who says you can, is obviously in on it too.
* Never trust a photo that is clear and detailed - obviously it's too good to be true
* Blurry, unfocused, photos are the only real proof that you can trust
* No photo at all is even better proof
* Main Stream Media......Pffff.
* Radical, outlandish, discredited, whacko, media is the only media to be believed
* If it's not there, and never recorded, then obviously, it's there.

Obviously I was wrong about my Dad's farm not being of any consequence. Those zoomed out aerial/satellite snaps had me suckered there for a while.

I'd hop on the next plane and check out the farm for myself, but I know they'd have covered it all up by the time I got there. Yet again more proof.

reply posted on 6-3-2009 @ 06:11 AM by Anubis3.14

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Originally posted by Anubis3.14
Well, heres the Official Explanation

www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

Im sorry, but thats laughable.

So are you calling in to question the following paragraph?

The only anomalies associated with these images are from the lossy image compression used and that should be inconsequential. If there are anomalies in the browser images, try viewing these low level images to clarify the terrain. This data set is in the public domain.

If so, why? Image compression does create small artifacts, though they tend to be uniform across the whole image, which is definitely not the case with the first image you called out.

As for the second part it's an entirely reasonable statement. As a matter of fact that's the underlying problem you're seeing. There's missing data. Think about it this way. When you ask for a 768x768 image and you ask for it at 1 pixel per kilometer some of the component images aren't present. So when it constructs the composite image, rather than leave sections black, it tweens from one frame to the next to approximate what it might look like.

To prove this to yourself, lets go to one of the anomalies:

Desired Resolution: 1 pixel = 1 kilometer
- Image Size = 768x768
- Latitude = 0
- Longitude = 318

Now click on the lower left hand corner of the image. Notice that this image has a higher resolution than the 768x768 1 pixel = 1 kilometer. That's because the native data is 1 pixel ~= 100 meters.

What that means is for 1 pixel in the 768x768; 1 pixel = 1 kilometer; scenario that 1 pixel contains information from 10 pixels in the (native data) 384 x 288 pixels; 1 pixel = 100m; image.

Now click the right arrow about 7 times. You should get "this image is unavailable." Think about that. Rather than throw out all the data it has to interpolate the data for one whole missing longitudinal 38.4 x 28.8 pixel / km segment which doesn't exist! This is why we get vertical banding. We get a fuzzy image whenever one pixel isn't modulo 10 and there's missing data adjacent to that pixel. To do smooth bicubic scaling it samples the information from adjacent pixels and since the adjacent component image is missing the sampling isn't terribly accurate.

And Come on, thats clearly a cut and paste, LOL.

Not sure I follow.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Xtraeme]

if you could show me some examples to prove your theory , that would be great. Im sure with all this logic, there has to be examples other then moon shots right? Im mean, how could you come up with sure info if there were no other examples?