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.

 

Huge Alien Structure Revealed - Far Side of the Moon 2010 *PHOTOS*

page: 13
87
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
do you have any proof that is what happened with that particular image ?

No, in the same way you don't have any proof that "NASA loves exploiting this Mercator distortion in the polar region of the lunar and planetary basemaps because of how this stretching of the image serves to subdue the more vertical structures/shapes in the frame".



were you there when the image was created and can bear witness to what you are claiming ?

No, but as I have been criticized for always saying "in my opinion" when posting exactly that, I stopped doing, so now I get criticized for not saying it.

Obviously, all the things I post are just my opinion.


i ask because these PDS images showing Zeeman crater are from Clementine and there is no blur ...

The PDS images never had that blur, that bug that created the blur was a bug on the software that created the images for the Clementine image browser.
(The above is just my opinion)




posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


ok thanks ArMaP, thats two "no's" for the record




The PDS images never had that blur, that bug that created the blur was a bug on the software that created the images for the Clementine image browser.
(The above is just my opinion)


where are you getting this information about the "bug" ?

is it something somebody told you about or is this info posted online somewhere you can link us to ? i understand it's just your opinion but there has to be some basis or reason why you are claiming there is or was a "bug"

or is the "bug" just something you made up to explain your theory about the image processing ? sorry for asking so many questions but i think it would be nice to know your reasons for having this "opinion"



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
been going through all my OLD LO books - and you know what's funny....?

Zeeman! no image in any book - however the areas surrounding are all there... can I be so brave as to suggest to ArMap that they are at the very least hiding something that may be there?

Still searching too...




posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
ok thanks ArMaP, thats two "no's" for the record

I can answer "no" more times, you just have to ask the right questions.



is it something somebody told you about or is this info posted online somewhere you can link us to ? i understand it's just your opinion but there has to be some basis or reason why you are claiming there is or was a "bug"

It's just my opinion, but in this case it can be considered somewhat like an expert opinion because I am a programmer, and being used to look for errors I can spot them easily and I get a "feeling" (because I need the code to have more than a feeling) of what was done wrong.


or is the "bug" just something you made up to explain your theory about the image processing ? sorry for asking so many questions but i think it would be nice to know your reasons for having this "opinion"

No (see, another no
), I never make up something to try to explain my theories, I do it in the opposite direction, I make my theories based on something, and in this case that something is the look of the images with the blurred areas, the fact that those blurred areas always (from those that I have seen) represented non-photographed areas (like in the case of the triangular blurs) or areas where an image is missing (the ones with rectangular areas), the fact that the images from the Clementine browser were created on the fly (according to the people that made the software), the fact that the non-blurred images are (and have been for some years) freely available and my knowledge of how things like the image browser could have been made.

But it's just a theory.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 

It has been mentioned here on ATS many times (I think often by ArMap himself) that the older Clementine Image Browser (version 1.5) would cause images to blur and cause some stitching lines to be visible when compiling the mosaic images together, but the newer version Clementine Image Browser 2.0 does not have the blur or stitching lines.

Both browsers, by the way, used the exact same raw images to compile a mosaic, but version 2.0 creates a much better and smoother mosaic.

[edit on 7/2/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Frakkerface
 


No, the blur is the result of a bug on the software that created that image in real time by joining several smaller photos. Apparently, when the software couldn't find one of those smaller images it would stretch the sides of the neighbouring images, making that blurring effect.


But in the black and white image above you can clearly see that there is something behind the blurring, like on the right hand side you can see the edge looks like stacks or a shelf structure. This makes it look a lot like something blurred on purpose rather than a processing bug.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Phage
 


thanks for the frame numbers, i will check those out.




reply to post by ArMaP
 



No, the blur is the result of a bug on the software that created that image in real time by joining several smaller photos. Apparently, when the software couldn't find one of those smaller images it would stretch the sides of the neighbouring images, making that blurring effect.


do you have any proof that is what happened with that particular image ?

were you there when the image was created and can bear witness to what you are claiming ?

i ask because these PDS images showing Zeeman crater are from Clementine and there is no blur ...

1.bp.blogspot.com...

2.bp.blogspot.com...




Well SINCE the object claimed in the OP is not seen in these images does that not confirm what was stated ie the object in the OP pics was created because of a software glitch as it was joining images to make a larger image of that area so no secret buildings and NO giant aliens


[edit on 2-7-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP


But it's just a theory.


thanks ArMaP for taking the time to explain your viewpoint




reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

It has been mentioned here on ATS many times (I think often by ArMap himself) that the older Clementine Image Browser (version 1.5) would cause images to blur


mentioning it and having a theory about it is not proof.

i'm not saying ArMaP's theory is wrong or correct, all i'm saying is,

nobody has posted any proof that backs up that claim.





reply to post by wmd_2008

Well SINCE the object claimed in the OP is not seen in these images does that not confirm what was stated ie the object in the OP pics was created because of a software glitch


maybe, maybe not,

you don't have any proof either ...do you


[edit on 2-7-2010 by easynow]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frakkerface
But in the black and white image above you can clearly see that there is something behind the blurring, like on the right hand side you can see the edge looks like stacks or a shelf structure. This makes it look a lot like something blurred on purpose rather than a processing bug.


This image?


That "shelf structure" is another common sign of something wrong in creating an image.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Frakkerface
But in the black and white image above you can clearly see that there is something behind the blurring, like on the right hand side you can see the edge looks like stacks or a shelf structure. This makes it look a lot like something blurred on purpose rather than a processing bug.


This image?


That "shelf structure" is another common sign of something wrong in creating an image.


There are other "anomolies" to consider, not related as above.

This link shows a 1994 Clementine image side by side with a Chang'e 2007 image of the same area,

www.planetary.org...

It first looks like a decade or so has changed the landscape with an added crater, but it is not so. The Chang'e picture has a seam running through the big crater and has drawn the tiny crater in the upper left of the Clementine picture down to the lower left, any contrast difference is probably due to the slightly better quality of the Chang'e camera. This link shows the orginal Clementine picture and a restored Chang'e picture again side by side,

www.planetary.org...


Source is from Emily Lakdawalla, The Planetary Society.

www.planetary.org...

At the end of the day, noone is sure about structures on the Moon's surface, or indeed what way to build them,(would you believe one idea is inflatables with it's own rationale why) The bare facts are that the Moon is a dustbin for big and small stuff "flying" in to it which doesn't care where it lands, so a Hilton on the Moon surface, I don't think so.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Almost done searching,

Just watched ALL the JAXA HD vids of the south pole area...this way, that way around there, over here, upside down, inside out, flying forward, flying backward...

AND GUESS WHAT?

No Zeeman shots, flybys, nothing. zilch. nada....

But we do get to see Newton TWICE! lol - this is an obvious case of purposely neglecting to show this area due to....

well..."NATIONAL SECURITY". pfft!



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 



i found a couple "blurred out" areas on the Clementine 'Albedo Map of the Moon' and one of them is on the edge of Zeeman crater










because it is displayed in polar projection, you can see that Zeeman is accurately displayed as a nadir overhead, as opposed to the CLIB 1.5 Mercator squash version.



Full Image with Labels
files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...


Original Image on the Navy - Clementine site
www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...


3 anomaly's on Zeeman crater ?

the "wrist watch" anomaly
files.abovetopsecret.com...

the "massive blurr" image
files.abovetopsecret.com...

and the "blurr out" on the Global map
files.abovetopsecret.com...



and another Giant blurr patch above Zeeman







Our estimates for both development and operation of the lunar base assume that it is located at the south pole.

Lunar Base South Pole


[edit on 3-7-2010 by easynow]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
3 anomaly's on Zeeman crater ?

the "wrist watch" anomaly
files.abovetopsecret.com...

the "massive blurr" image
files.abovetopsecret.com...

and the "blurr out" on the Global map
files.abovetopsecret.com...

No, two anomalies in images that show Zeeman crater.


The "massive blur" and the "blur out" are the same.

Unless I am misunderstanding something.



Our estimates for both development and operation of the lunar base assume that it is located at the south pole.

Lunar Base South Pole

Your link redirects me to Google.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Sorry...from reading through these various threads on topic, the "blurs" have been repeatedly explained....imaging anomalies.

NOT "intentional" to "hide" something.

I mean...really?

Let's put it this way: If YOU were in charge, at NASA, and wanted to "hide" something from public scrutiny --- would YOU be so clumsy???

I mean....making it such an obvious 'giant blur'???

Wouldn't YOU, instead, utilize all of your skills, and the abilities at your disposal, to use computer processing software programs to at least 'paint in' craters and terrain, and such, to make it look unblemished?


This is why I find these 'claims' to be ultra-silly....they assume that NASA are fools.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


good eye ArMaP and nice animation


so it appears there is a overhead image with the correct perspective with the blur ? and a squashed one with the blur too ?



Your link redirects me to Google

it was suppose to




i believe the missing High Resolution Lunar Orbiter frame that has the "wrist watch" anomaly in it is this one...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

too bad the image is gone ?




what did you think about this other blurred area ?







reply to post by weedwhacker

it looks like complaining is your specialty


[edit on 3-7-2010 by easynow]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 

No. I don't think so.
astrogeology.usgs.gov...

astrogeology.usgs.gov...

astrogeology.usgs.gov...

You can get the hirez versions here:
astrogeology.usgs.gov...



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


none of those images have the "wrist watch" anomaly





[edit on 3-7-2010 by easynow]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 

1) I don't think those particular images are the right ones.
2) I guess I assumed most anyone serious about examining lunar images would know about the site.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


FYI - i knew about that site and was looking there yesterday so your snide remark is childish and stupid





@ everyone else

i'm wondering what happened to this image ?



www.lpi.usra.edu...


that is probably the one we are looking for


[edit on 3-7-2010 by easynow]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
good eye ArMaP and nice animation

For those that are used to analyse images that's easy.



so it appears there is a overhead image with the correct perspective with the blur ? and a squashed one with the blur too ?

If the "squashed" version was map-projected from the other mosaic it's natural that it shows the same anomalies.


how come we don't have access to the image file of the overhead version ? or will you try and get me to believe they altered the squashed one ? LOL
We have, we just need to know where to look.


(I have to post just a link because the image is too big for posting)


it was suppose to

That wasn't very helpful. And you complain about Phage not posting direct links to the photos he had already identified...


what did you think about this other blurred area ?

That it shows, once more, that those areas are related to the (missing on the mosaic) photos and not to something on the Moon, what other (reasonable) reason can you think off to explain the fact that the sides of the blurred rectangle match the north/south lines and Clementine's polar (or near polar) orbit?



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join