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 12's Covert EVA , Are E.T.'s the reason for the Secrecy ?

page: 20
37
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So my guess based on my personal experience is, the reason for the defocused areas is a result of curling of the film such as I have seen in old film myself.


The focus gradients do not shift around in the FOV as the scenes play out - they remain as essentially static vertical divides, exactly as a blur mask would behave if it was introduced during post-production for obfuscative reasons as I said. I see nothing to suggest these focus/blur divides are merely the result of inept digital scanning procedures or "curled" film as you suggest. We are not talking about home movie footage here that was stored in my grandmother's musty basement in a cardboard box for years and years, but rather this film was stored in special climate and humidity-controlled freezers specifically to help prevent the type of degradation you are mentioning from occurring. You can go and try to create HD digital scans of old 16mm film footage using exactly the same digital frame scanning techniques NASA did to their DAC footage for their HD archive, and try to reproduce that effect exactly as you see it in multiple DAC footage clips. I don't think you can reproduce the same effect.


if someone was trying to obfuscate what was being photographed it would seem more logical to have the edges in focus and the center out of focus, but they have done the exact opposite.


I completely fail to understand this simplistic argument at all. It seems you are assuming that all types of obfuscation have to be directly targeted at hiding a lone specific feature, and that is NOT why this particular blur gradient technique was applied. As I said in my above post, this technique is but one part of the sanitizing process, designed to degrade the quality of the OVERALL scene, which is EXACTLY what it does. It makes OVER two-thirds of the FOV out-of-focus, and you still don't see how incredibly effective that is as an obfuscative tool??? It is FAR more effective than the way you suggested as being "logical". If NASA followed your logic and just blurred the center of frame and left the outsides in focus, then that obfuscation technique would be FAR less effective as it would leave far more of the FOV in focus! That should be blatantly obvious.

Look at the example I highlighted showing that crater. If that footage had been obfuscated with the center blurred and the outsides in-focus to meet your standard of what would be logical, we would now have an excellent in-focus view of that crater to look at, right? That crater was the target being filmed, but it stays on the right side of frame in the obfuscative blur area, never centering on the camera principal point where the focus is tight, even though that crater is clearly what was being targeted by the cameraman. Keeping targets centered (where the focus is good) rarely happens in the DAC orbital footage because of the movement that is almost always occurring in the FOV. This obfuscative technique takes full advantage of that.

Now, in the stable hard-mounted DAC footage shot down on the lunar surface during the moonwalk EVAs, we do not see this blur technique being used. Those stable scenes, because they do not have the shake or surface panning movements, do not exploit this gradient technique because it would not be effective there. This gradient obfuscative technique is specifically designed to work on orbital scenes where there is plenty of movement/shake in the FOV, and in those cases, it works! They dont apply it to stable EVA surface footage because it is not really effective against stable footage. It is selectively applied where it will be most effective - and it is most effective when used on orbital footage where the whole of the FOV is moving around.

(sorry, I am limited to only 4000 characters per post, so i have to continue this below in the next post)




posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
(continued from above)

If you go and watch the Apollo orbital DAC footage (not just short clips of it) you will see that the idea of keeping the relevant objects that are being filmed centered in the camera's principal point does not happen very often at all in that footage. The handheld orbital footage is typically VERY shaky, and the hard-mounted orbital footage is showing surface scenes panning beneath the spacecraft, not locking on a target and keeping it centered. This means that the objects being filmed from orbit are almost always moving around either due to camera shake or surface panning.

Using this gradient obfuscation technique, as I said above, is a highly effective obfuscator because of the movement that is always occurring in the FOV. That movement forces the objects position in the FOV to constantly change, sweeping those objects through the focus gradients and constantly altering their focus characteristics, which is why this technique is so effective at not only degrading the overall quality of the raw footage, but also is exactly what you would do if your goal was to hinder other more intensive enhancement techniques without being blatantly overt about it. This is a logical obfuscative technique that takes advantage of the fact that the orbital footage is not typically showing anything close to a stable, unchanging scene, whereas your idea of what would be a logical obfuscator against that footage would only apply if the footage was stable and the relevant objects did not migrate around the FOV. The orbital DAC footage does not show stable scenes however.

Blurring over 2/3rds of a visible scene should be considered a very effective obfuscator under any circumstances, and when you appreciate that the effectiveness of this technique actually increases as the movement in the FOV increases, you can see why it was applied to the orbital DAC footage that is typically filled with plenty of movement in the FOV.

Cheers,
LC



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
yea just look at what those "boneheads" are releasing to the public !



that is a spacecraft on the Lunar surface that was photographed with the LRO imaging camera. since the picture is so clear and detailed it should be easy to tell exactly what it is , right ?
Wrong, everything has a limit, as you know, in any photo you can only distinguish, in optimal conditions, objects that are more than twice the resolution.

More on topic, do you have any idea of the size of the features we can see on the videos?


hoooo boy , exposing NASA's lies sure does piss some people off !
It doesn't "piss me off", but I find it a waste of time when someone insists that something that they cannot prove it's a lie and uses all his/her resources to try to prove something they can not.

Could it be a lie? Sure, lets see who could gain (I may be using the word "gain" in a wrong context, just like in a previous post, what I mean is that they could get something for it) from that lie, what reasons could be behind it, etc.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LunaCognita
Blurring over 2/3rds of a visible scene should be considered a very effective obfuscator under any circumstances, and when you appreciate that the effectiveness of this technique actually increases as the movement in the FOV increases, you can see why it was applied to the orbital DAC footage that is typically filled with plenty of movement in the
And why not obfuscate everything? Why make it in a way that is so noticeable? People would just say that those were the normal bad NASA images.

PS: What reason do you think was behind this supposed obfuscation? What were they trying to hide (except in the middle of the frame
)?



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



Wrong, everything has a limit

true that, but you don't know what the limit really is because of the real time circumstances that were involved or what the optimal conditions were so telling me i am wrong when you don't know all the facts is hilarious !!






do you have any idea of the size of the features we can see on the videos?

no sorry i haven't been to the Moon but maybe you have ? and since i haven't been there and i certainly can't trust NASA's imagery then i can't make that kind of a judgement.





It doesn't "piss me off", but I find it a waste of time when someone insists that something that they cannot prove it's a lie and uses all his/her resources to try to prove something they can not.

are you sure, because it seems your upset with me ?


it's nothing but your opinion that nothing has been proven and your idea of proof isn't the golden rule of the planet (in case you didn't know that) and i guess if ArMaP doesn't think so then it isn't so huh ?




what reasons could be behind it

that has already been answered a few times
if you go back and look for it you will find it.


[edit on 8-2-2010 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
true that, but you don't know what the limit really is because of the real time circumstances that were involved or what the optimal conditions were so telling me i am wrong when you don't know all the facts is hilarious !!
My "wrong" was an answer to your "right?", as it's not right that it should be easy to tell exactly what that spacecraft is, the photo does not have enough resolution, even if the lighting was the best possible.


no sorry i haven't been to the Moon but maybe you have ? and since i haven't been there and i certainly can't trust NASA's imagery then i can't make that kind of a judgement.
I asked because maybe someone knows what's that region and maybe recognised some features, that way we could know what size they are and get an idea of what we may be missing by not seeing the sides of the image as we see the centre.


are you sure, because it seems your upset with me ?
Nah, I'm not upset with anything or anyone, if I didn't got upset in previous discussion it's not this one that is going to do it.



it's nothing but you opinion that nothing has been proven and your idea of proof isn't the golden rule of the planet (in case you didn't know that) and i guess if ArMaP doesn't think so then it isn't so huh ?
I know that, but you probably also know that everyone has his/her own idea of what if enough proof for any particular case, and that idea changes with the subject, because as hard as we may try we are always influenced by something that makes us more pro or against something.

In my case, I am not against the people that say that NASA has lied about some things, but just because someone says it it doesn't mean it's true, and just because NASA lied in some things it does not mean that they lied in everything.


what reasons could be behind it

that has already been answered a few times
if you go back and look for it you will find it.
I don't have the time to do it now (it's already 2:00 AM here in Portugal) and I really don't remember it.

Maybe tomorrow.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



the photo does not have enough resolution

once again, you don't know what the optimal circumstances really were to make the claim you are making. you can say it's my opinion or this might be the answer but you cannot speak in absolutes when you don't really know all the facts. was it not good that i suggested to look for the "details" of the spacecraft when i don't really know all the facts either ? probably



Nah, I'm not upset with anything or anyone

ok good to hear that my friend





just because NASA lied in some things it does not mean that they lied in everything.

that's a subjective situation but i thought the rule was once a liar always a liar ? you said that in my other thread ( i can quote you if need be)
is there now a double standard about that ?




I don't have the time to do it now (it's already 2:00 AM here in Portugal) and I really don't remember it. Maybe tomorrow

ok no problem and no rush, the answer is there and discussed many times.

interesting your only 4.5 hours ahead in time verses here in the U.S. eastern time zone. i would have thought it would be more but i guess your closer than i thought
well have a good night ArMaP , and i have to ask , did you forget to acknowledge LunaCognita's post that explained to you where he got that clementine image ? just wondering



[edit on 8-2-2010 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by LunaCognita

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So my guess based on my personal experience is, the reason for the defocused areas is a result of curling of the film such as I have seen in old film myself.


The focus gradients do not shift around in the FOV as the scenes play out - they remain as essentially static vertical divides, exactly as a blur mask would behave if it was introduced during post-production for obfuscative reasons as I said. I see nothing to suggest these focus/blur divides are merely the result of inept digital scanning procedures or "curled" film as you suggest.


Nor would we expect to see the defocused areas move around with curled film. The projector or similar film transfer device doesn't flatten the film completely, but limits the amount of curl that can be expressed because it does capture the edges of the film within certain limits. Therefore the prosaic explanation effect of film curl would be more or less the same as an effect from an intentionally applied defocusing gradient.


We are not talking about home movie footage here that was stored in my grandmother's musty basement in a cardboard box for years and years, but rather this film was stored in special climate and humidity-controlled freezers specifically to help prevent the type of degradation you are mentioning from occurring.


Yes they can slow the degradation process down, but they can't eliminate it completely. And you might be surprised how quickly some film starts to curl.

Also here's another question for you, is it only the 16mm DAC footage from film that shows this effect? If so then that's more evidence it's an artifact of the conversion process and not some obfuscation conspiracy. If they were trying to obfuscate video, why just do the film? But if it's a conversion artifact as I suggest then it makes perfect sense to only see it on the video that was converted from film. But that could also depend on how quickly the film to video conversion process took place. The longer they waited, the greater the curl, even if the film was stored under optimized storage conditions.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


until you post a video example to back up your film curl theory it's a moot point

maybe you have some to post ?



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by LunaCognita
 


thanks LunaCognita for your excellent reply's to ArMaP and Arbitrageur that explains everything even though they have completely ignored it.

i guess it's easier to just skip right on over you posts and not respond to them ?
looks to me to be the case here






I don't think you can reproduce the same effect.

i don't think he can reproduce it either and he is without a doubt grasping at straws !





designed to degrade the quality of the OVERALL scene, which is EXACTLY what it does. It makes OVER two-thirds of the FOV out-of-focus, and you still don't see how incredibly effective that is as an obfuscative tool??? It is FAR more effective than the way you suggested as being "logical". If NASA followed your logic and just blurred the center of frame and left the outsides in focus, then that obfuscation technique would be FAR less effective as it would leave far more of the FOV in focus! That should be blatantly obvious.

it's blatantly obvious to me and they are just throwing the "why not blurry in the center" nonsense out there to be obtuse. your absolutely correct , two thirds of the FOV is out of focus and has ruined the quality of the overall scene. anyone with half a brain can see this.








That crater was the target being filmed, but it stays on the right side of frame in the obfuscative blur area, never centering on the camera principal point where the focus is tight, even though that crater is clearly what was being targeted by the cameraman.

another great point and i totally agree that crater was the main target and never does enter the center FOV and is obviously kept in the out of focus area on purpose.









This means that the objects being filmed from orbit are almost always moving around either due to camera shake or surface panning.

more great points and with the hand held camera they could stay focused on a specific area much longer verses the orbital panning that had a constantly moving scene. it makes complete sense to me why they would need to do this to the hand held footage and not the other.





thanks for explaining it to everyone, and i am sure many people get it but you will always have some that will refuse to accept it because they are forever lost in their skeptical wonderland


[edit on 8-2-2010 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


until you post a video example to back up your film curl theory it's a moot point

maybe you have some to post ?


I can prove that this is a real effect. Here's a professional film scanner and it talks about how to deal with EXACTLY what Luna Cognita calls an obfuscation gradient:

Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Film Scanner


Normally, the scanner's autofocus system looks at the center of the frame to perform its focus adjustments. Alternatively, you can specify what part of the film you want it to adjust for, or what part of the film you want to manually adjust the focus based on. These are useful features, in that we've sometimes seen scanner autofocus systems outfoxed by low-contrast, or poorly-focused originals. Also, in the case of severely curled film, you may opt for sharp focus in one part of the frame, at the cost of poorer focus elsewhere. The Dimage Scan multi accommodates such situations with the aforementioned option of specifying the point of focus.


It even points out that it focuses on the center by default!!!!! You have the option of changing this default setting with a manual override if you think the most important part of the image you want in focus is near the edge.

Now I've proven this is a real effect, if you want anyone to believe the conspiracy theory I think the burden is on you to show it's not a result of this prosaic explanation which I've demonstrated.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Now I've proven this is a real effect,


you have not proven or demonstrated that it looks the same as what we see in the DAC footage !!!
either you supply some video examples of this effect for everyone to see and make a comparison or you got zippo, nada, nothing !




you are the one making the claim that the curl theory explains it,

the burden of proof is yours and words alone are not enough , sorry






[edit on 9-2-2010 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
words alone are not enough sorry


Those words prove the issue of film not being focused across the full frame is a known issue with multiple options for dealing with it.

No "obfuscation gradient" need be applied, it's discussed as a known issue on the Minolta film scanner web page.

If you want to believe it's an obfuscation gradient instead of what Minolta describes, knock yourself out, I really don't care.

But you could at least acknowledge that Minolta has described this effect in some detail including the option for providing a manual override of the feature that automatically keeps the center in focus, if you would rather put another part of the frame in focus.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Are you going to post some examples or aren't you?



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


nobody is denying that it is not a real effect.

all i am asking you to do is provide some examples so everyone can see it and make a comparison. is that too much to ask for ? isn't that a fair and logical choice ?

maybe that effect does not look anything like what we see in the DAC footage ?? should we just accept your theory without really checking it out ?



remember you are the one making the claim this explains it and the burdon of proof is on you to back up the claim your making !




[edit on 9-2-2010 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 



you got zippo, nada nothing !


Well.

I could easily say the same about YOU, and Luna, and Exuberant (who tends to igone the facts) or wohmever....

I will admit, LunaCognnita "talks" ('writes') a good game, with not only the "gift of gab", but skills at wirting as well. OH!!! AND, a bunch of competely unrelated visuals to boot!!!!

BUT, I am sorry...as much as I desire there to BE an estabished HUMAN presencence, alread, on the Moon, I wish it wwre so....

Barring an established HUMAN presence, and the implication that some "ALIEN" presence exists. on the Moon...well, FABULOUS!!!!

Just provide BETTER 'proof'!!! Pretty, pretty please.

SO FAR, we get the arcane descriutions, and hints at "NASA Cover-ups"....

I am sorry, we need MORE!!!!

AND, obviously adulterated images from "The Liviing MOON website aren't going to cut it, any more!!!

(not sayin' that THOSE were uysed...but who kows???)

Sorry, Ron....IF you even bother to visit ATS anymore. YOU hitched your wagon to LEAR...and we all know where that led you...but, you';re probably down in the gold mine, so.....luck with THAT!!!

0H is 2010!!!!! We have better technology than existed in the 1980s,,,,even us amaterios who read Scientific American know more than most of the thread starters, or "YouTube" posters on int INtenet....



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



If you want to believe it's an obfuscation gradient instead of what Minolta describes, knock yourself out, I really don't care.


wow i am saddened that you gave up so easily when i was looking forward to you posting some examples of the curl effect so we could compare them ?

what is the real reason for you throwing in the towel ?

is it because you don't have any examples to show us or is it because the effect does not look the same and you know it doesn't ?

which one is it ?



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 01:45 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   
There must be obfuscation, because it helps the conspiracy theories (theorists) and their work.

And the others, should prove there is not obfuscation.


Damn burden of proof.



I'll go with postprocessing issue, the low depth of field of the scanner which scanned the original curled film. (macrophotography indeed have a very short interval of depth of field.





[edit on 9/2/10 by depthoffield]



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join