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.

 

Apollo Hardware Spotted!

page: 24
58
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by bokonon2010
That is why
OK, I understand what happened.

...

That is not my interest at the moment, I just want to know why the conversion from PNG to TIFF is presented as something suspicious or wrong.

Who did say that?
"Stanley Kubrick" only expressed concerns about NASA management of subcontractors, who left [unnecessary] traces of their image manipulations.

It would be rather interesting to know how the images:
JPEGs - TIFFs - PNGs - PDS (JPEG2000)
manipulated by
NASA HQ - subcontractors - Arizona Uni - NASA Ops
can be presented to the mass media as historical documented evidence of something, and what level of authenticity and logic the public would accept.

[edit on 1.8.2009 by bokonon2010]

[edit on 1.8.2009 by bokonon2010]




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


So, you are talking about the lack of evidence status regardless of the file format?



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 

I for one haven't seen any manipulation in any of the pictures. Are you sure you're looking at the same ones?


[edit on 1/8/2009 by PsykoOps]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 




Please do not deviate from the question of the dust at Apollo 15 site, we would like to see which option do you prefer: 1. or 2.


The answer is neither, the choices are not valid.

You have not shown an image from Kaguya. You have shown the image from the LRO and two images taken during the Apollo 15 mission (AS15-9430 and AS15-87-11719). AS15-87-11719 was taken from the LM while descending to land. AS15-9430 was taken from the command module after the LM had landed.

It should also be noted that the angle of the lighting in the LROC and Kaguya image is very different from that in the Apollo mission images. When comparing differences in reflectivity this becomes very important.

Here is the image from Kaguya:
www.jaxa.jp...
The bright area in the Kaguya image appears to correspond to the bright area to the east of the LM in the LROC image.

[edit on 8/1/2009 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I for one haven't seen any manipulation in any of the pictures. Are you sure you're looking at the same ones?

Link in my 1st post has large picture of A-14 site with angle markers for LM and other shadows;
My post about the "dust halo" at A-15 site with image comparison from A-15, Kaguya, LROC.
It is up to you to decide what level of visual perception is comfortable for you.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


I'll let the image experts whiegh in with more detailed analysis, but at first look, did YOU not see the difference between the 'LRO' image and the 'KAYUGA' image???


Give up? Hint: shadows.

If you think the angle of the Sun doesn't make a difference, then there is no hope.....

edit: Ooops...I was bottom of page #23, forgot to look ahead. Looks like I got beat (again)!




[edit on 1 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bokonon2010
 




Please do not deviate from the question of the dust at Apollo 15 site, we would like to see which option do you prefer: 1. or 2.


The answer is neither, the choices are not valid.

You have not shown an image from Kaguya. You have shown the image from the LRO and two images taken during the Apollo 15 mission (AS15-9430 and AS15-87-11719). AS15-87-11719 was taken from the LM while descending to land. AS15-9430 was taken from the command module after the LM had landed.

It should also be noted that the angle of the lighting in the LROC and Kaguya image is very different from that in the Apollo mission images. When comparing differences in reflectivity this becomes very important.

Here is the image from Kaguya:
www.jaxa.jp...
The bright area in the Kaguya image appears to correspond to the bright area to the east of the LM in the LROC image.

[edit on 8/1/2009 by Phage]

I am afraid I can't help you with your vision checkup over Internet and with your perception of the image attached directly to my 1st post about "dust halo".
I also can't help you with your logic, if you see AS15-* image file names in the same post.

[edit on 1.8.2009 by bokonon2010]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 

You did not provide the image ID's in your post. They are provided at the JAXA link which you did provide.
Here is the image from the link:

Here is the caption from the link:

(Fig 4) The lunar surface reflectivity change from before and after the landing (provided from NASA (left image : AS15-87-11719, right image : AS15-9430))

www.jaxa.jp...

Your first post does not contain the image from Kaguya.


Here is a comparison of the Kaguya image (from the link) with the LROC image



[edit on 8/1/2009 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Was the moon dust blown away by LM on the other Apollo sites?
If so, can you present LROC images to show us this effect?

Have the moon dust blown away by LM departure stage, also?



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


I am still waiting for an answer to my previous post.

When you give it a straight answer I will answer your question.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


So, you are talking about the lack of evidence status regardless of the file format?

Do I look like Apollo enthusiast to you who can take evidence regardless file formats (file format also specifies resolution, color depth, etc.) and the context?

[edit on 2.8.2009 by bokonon2010]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

The file formats being discussed are the ones with less limitations, specially TIFF, the most versatile format.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


The file formats being discussed are the ones with less limitations, specially TIFF, the most versatile format.


You probably want to contact NASA OIG that their Arizona subcontracts
do not share your opinion and use PNG and Adobe Photoshop CS4,
as seen from XMP headers.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


As it looks like I am unable to make myself understood by you, I will try in a different way.

What format do you wanted those images to be posted?



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


As it looks like I am unable to make myself understood by you, I will try in a different way.

What format do you wanted those images to be posted?


NASA already provided model files to the trusted Apollo enthusiasts (re: ALSJ) however it appears that the lack of cooperation between the groups and subcontractors created some problems:
1. traces of file manipulations (fortunately, true US patriots don't look into file internals and watch unbias media like Fox News or Sky)
2. inconsistency between approved releases (and international cooperation),
e.g. moon dust problem as we pointed in this thread.

Also, it appears that the President Office media advisers have not been briefed by NASA, and now to clarify the claim of seeing those capsules from Stanley's shoulders the President have to travel between Indonesia and Hawaii in 1967-1971 in tight time frames:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


I still have the impression that you are answering everything except what I asked.


Do you mean that what made you make your initial post was the publishing of the photos, regardless of the file format?

Or was it the fact that they passed through Photoshop, even if you do not know what happened?

PS: I would like to tell you that English is not my natural language, as I said before I am Portuguese, and I learnt English by myself, so there are many things that I do not really understand and many times I write strange sentences.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


I still have the impression that you are answering everything except what I asked.


Do you mean that what made you make your initial post was the publishing of the photos, regardless of the file format?

Or was it the fact that they passed through Photoshop, even if you do not know what happened?

PS: I would like to tell you that English is not my natural language, as I said before I am Portuguese, and I learnt English by myself, so there are many things that I do not really understand and many times I write strange sentences.


Maybe because your questions are not relevant to the issues we have raised,
and you want to shift attention from them?



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


If you think Arizona State scientists are liars and conspirators, then prove it. File format conversion is not proof.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


If you think Arizona State scientists are liars and conspirators, then prove it. File format conversion is not proof.


Scientists have to ensure authenticity of materials for the public and support their claims by verifiable sources.

1. So far, those five "Apollo landing sites" images have been created from PNG files, that is
A. no evidence that the images have been created from the actual LRO data
B. breaking NASA and LROC project software and data standards itself.

2. These "LROC" images are inconsistent with Kagya images which have acknowledged "dust sweep" effect;
therefore it implies that from 2008 to 2009 the dust somehow returned to the "Apollo landing sites" with special properties of not disturbing other Apollo sightings (footpaths, LM leftovers, Apollo rovers, etc).
Then these creeping moon dust could endanger laser retro-reflectors and other NASA historical treasures.

[edit on 3.8.2009 by bokonon2010]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010
Maybe because your questions are not relevant to the issues we have raised, and you want to shift attention from them?

OK, then what are the issues, I have been trying to know if your issues are related to the file format or not, but your answers have not cleared that doubt, so I keep on asking.

Maybe this new "issues version" will work.

Could you please explain better what are the issues you have raised?
Thanks in advance.

PS: can you tell us (the people who read this thread) what do you mean by "we"? Is it a "royal we", are you part of a team or did you based your work on some else's work and are including that person in the "we"? Thanks for a possible answer (although I probably will not understand it
).



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join