---

---

Compare 0:58 with 8:19 in the video.

Is that just a coincidence that our machine from that angle looks so similar to the thing in the crater? I don't know much about this stuff at this point, so that's a serious question from me. I'm not implying or suggesting anything, just thought the similarities were interesting.

---

---

ENOUGH!!


The off topic attacks on members stops now! You'll all start posting on topic, or this thread goes away.

If you think we're kidding, just continue on...

Originally posted by seagull
ENOUGH!!


The off topic attacks on members stops now! You'll all start posting on topic, or this thread goes away.

If you think we're kidding, just continue on...

Or, instead of deleting a topic, you can start banning...why ruin a good thread because of a few bad apples?

Just sayin'

Originally posted by seagull
ENOUGH!!


The off topic attacks on members stops now! You'll all start posting on topic, or this thread goes away.

If you think we're kidding, just continue on...

Can you clarify please?

Is pointing out that a rejection of material is illegitimate when one has not bothered to examine that material - and proving that a member can not have examined that material - suddenly being deemed an 'attack' now, despite this being standard practice at ATS, and perfectly reasonable?

Apparently so, as all posts doing so have been selectively removed from this thread.

When a perspective is not valid because it is based on total ignorance of the material under discussion - and when this can and has also be proven - it is legitimate to point that out and this is common practice at ATS. Why are members being protected from this normal cut and thrust of debate and from being held accountable for making totally uniformed and unreasonable condemnations?

Will the exposing of hoaxes now be deemed an "attack" too, seeing as the exposure of the exact pseudo-skeptical equivalent of "hoaxing" is being deemed an "attack"?

I'd like clarification because this removing of posts at ATS has strayed into new territory, as far as I can see, and so I'm not quite sure what you deem as acceptable or not anymore.




[edit on 17-3-2010 by Malcram]

The off topic attacks on members stops now!

What part of this sentence is hard to understand?

The topic is: LunaCognita- A Forensic Look At The 16mm DAC Film Footage.

It is not commentary on whether or not someone watched it all the way through...

Comment on the film. Not the members. Understand now?

Do Not Reply To This Post.

Originally posted by seagull

The off topic attacks on members stops now!

What part of this sentence is hard to understand?

The topic is: LunaCognita- A Forensic Look At The 16mm DAC Film Footage.

It is not commentary on whether or not someone watched it all the way through...

Comment on the film. Not the members. Understand now?

Do Not Reply To This Post.

You asked several questions and then said "don't reply to this post".

I'm confused. Which is it? Do you want answers to your questions or not?

No, I don't understand. It's not at all clear, just like this last post. Nor does it address any of the questions I asked with regard to clarification.

The member was not being attacked (I can't speak for all posts, but I can speak for my own, which were also unnecessarily removed in their entirety) it was being pointed out - and categorically proven - that their condemnatory judgement of the material in question was rendered without having actually examined the material. That's not an "attack", it's debate regarding the quality of the material and the rejection of a judgement based on it being uniformed. This is standard ATS discussion, and I can't for the life of me see why it has been surgically cut out of this thread, except to coverup a member's errors and protect their perspective from criticism (criticism of of the validity of perspectives - debate - which is what we are here for and is not an "attack"). If that was not the intent of this moderation then it is still certainly the result.

For instance, if I say: "This is the best video I have ever seen. It's fantastic and proves both that ETs are here and that NASA is covering it up. Case closed", will you call it an 'attack' when others criticize my judgement and require me to prove where in the video this was proven? Or would you call it an "attack" if it was shown that I reached this conclusion without actually watching the video, and this is the very definition of 'bias', and would you prevent other members from pointing this out and remove any and all posts that did so? Somehow I doubt it, and nor should you, because I SHOULD have to account for my judgement.

So why the double standard?

Now, as it stands, you have left this member's strongly worded condemnation and their follow up post defending it and yet removed all posts which question this condemnation and PROVE that it not legitimate because it was given without actually having seen the the material being condemned! You've left one side of the debate intact and totally removed the other.

Do you feel that is fair or reasonable?

I certainly don't.

I wonder if I ever make such a huge error in overtly biased (pre)judgement and get caught red handed if a Mod will come along and clean things up for me by removing any and all posts which challenge and expose it?


[edit on 17-3-2010 by Malcram]

Sorry OP....I thought this was a terrible piece especially when they did the 'stacking'. What the heck were we supposed to be seeing? They pointed nothing out.

And nothin' for nothin', the music was very distracting too.

Surely there's a better presentation than this. But, thanks anyway!

Originally posted by TwoPhish
Sorry OP....I thought this was a terrible piece especially when they did the 'stacking'. What the heck were we supposed to be seeing? They pointed nothing out.

And nothin' for nothin', the music was very distracting too.

Surely there's a better presentation than this. But, thanks anyway!

Wow, I don't get the criticism of the "stacking". I'm no expert, but I know when a fuzzy image suddenly gains clarity, which is what the stacking appeared to do.

As for the question of "what are we supposed to be seeing" - I actually think one of the strengths of the video was that it clarified the image and then simply showed it to you, repeating and stabilizing certain sections, but WITHOUT "telling you" what you should be seeing. If there is anything there to see, then I feel it's better that we should spot it and interpret it ourselves, without being lead and told what to think. There were a few anomalies that were definitely worth a serious second look, and some of it was debris (IMO). But I think the video was excellent overall.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by seagull

The off topic attacks on members stops now!

What part of this sentence is hard to understand?

The topic is: LunaCognita- A Forensic Look At The 16mm DAC Film Footage.

It is not commentary on whether or not someone watched it all the way through...

Comment on the film. Not the members. Understand now?

Do Not Reply To This Post.

You asked several questions and then said don't reply to this post.

I'm confused. Which is it? Do you want answers to your questions or not?

No, I don't understand. it's not at all clear, just like this last post. Nor does it address any of the questions I asked with regard to clarification.

The member was not being attacked (I can't speak for all posts, but I can speak for my own, which were also removed) it was being pointed out - and categorically proven - that their condemnatory judgement of the material in question was rendered without having actually examined the material. That's not an "attack", it's debate regarding the quality of the material and the rejection of a judgement based on it being uniformed. This is standard ATS discussion, and I can't for the life of me see why it has been surgically cut out of this thread, except to coverup a members errors and protect their perspective from criticism (criticism of of the validity of perspectives - debate - which is what we are here for and is not an "attack"

Quoted for agreement and to state that the threshold of tolerance seems mighty delicate and one-sided.

ON TOPIC:

I am most impressed by the enhanced clarity gained by the post production "stacking" effect. I think this process can shed new light on previously unrecognizable footage. I am happy to have seen it and for the gained insight.

Regards...kk


[edit on 17-3-2010 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
This is the type of stuff that would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Forensic, lol.

Honetsly, I tried to make this longer than one line, but I think I summed up what I and many others are thinking when they see tripe like this.

OK, this is the 'treading on eggshells version". If this gets removed then frankly, ATS, isn't worth my while visiting anymore as free debate would no longer be possible. I'm going to try this again, this time being extremely careful to be as polite and strictly factual as possible so as not to hurt anyone's feelings. So....

I don't feel your condemnation of the video quoted above is valid, Ignorethefacts.

The reason I say this is that the video is 10 minutes long and you could not have watched more than 2 minutes of it, if any, before posting the above response. How do I know this? Well, because this thread was created at 5:18 and yet you replied condemning it at 5:22.

That's four minutes.

In four minutes you had to have noticed the new thread almost the instant it was created, clicked on it, read the OP, clicked on the youtube video, watched it (but without reading the lengthy explanatory text at the side) and then created and posted a response.

If we are very generous, we could conclude that, at the very most, you may have seen 2 minutes of the 10 minute long video before responding.

So, can you tell us what, in the first two minutes, you feel warrants your judgement of the video being "funny if it weren't so sad" and "tripe"? As far as I'm aware, there is nothing whatsoever in the first two minutes - or indeed the whole video - to justify that response, but perhaps I'm missing something.

To put is as mildly as I can, it certainly seems that you jumped the gun here and were displaying bias in strongly condemning a video you hadn't even watched.

I presume you have since had time to watch the video. Don't you even feel that the stacking technique employed yielded interesting results in clarifying the images and that the video was worthwhile on that basis alone? I personally think it's interesting and commnendable that Luna Cognita put in the work to do this, rather than NASA, providing us with such clear images.


[edit on 17-3-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by kinda kurious
I am most impressed by the enhanced clarity gained by the post production "stacking" effect. I think this process can shed new light on previously unrecognizable footage. I am happy to have seen it and for the gained insight.

G'day KK

The point I was making in my previous post regarding the analogy with my own imaging experience is.....

You have to be very careful when basing definitive conclusions on images that have been processed through this type of "averaging" & other "post processing" techniques.

Without knowing exactly what has been done, what algorithms have been used, etc... you must be careful about drawing conclusions. This becomes more important, as you drill down into fine detail, which we are doing with these moon images.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by ArMaP
As for the loss of detail, I don't know if there was any, but looking at the original frames I think that there are more shades of grey than on the final image, and if that's the case then there was some detail loss.

G'day Armap

I agree with you entirely regarding the loss of greyscale information.

In my own imaging work, it is simple to post process an image to look "sharper" to the untrained eye.

However with some level of image interpretation training & orientation, it can be shown that info has actually been lost by doing that. It can also be shown that "distortion" & "false" info can be introduced into the images.

That is why we actually use phantoms, computer tools, etc... to measure.....

High contrast resolution:

i.e. resolution with less shades of grey, as per the post processed images in lunar's vid.

Low contrast resolution:

i.e. resolution with more shades of grey (noting we also test the resolution of the available grey scale itself) as per the "non processed" images in lunar's vid.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

is there no information at all on the blue thing?