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.

 

On the Moon - just some boulders or is this a Lunar Rover ?

page: 6
27
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by arianna
 


Hahaha, nice one.

You've got the lingo down pat, but I think your assessments are a bit too far from the mark. You need to tone things down a bit.

Terraforming the moon? Artificial craters?

C'mon. Who you kidding?


No Exuberant1, I am not kidding!

A link is provided below to an image which contains many artificial features, including a fine example of a small construction made to appear from above as a crater. The location of the scene is close to the outer edge of Copernicus crater. The image was captured during the Apollo 17 mission.

Are the large black areas shadows or large areas of water (lakes)?

i985.photobucket.com...




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna

Are the large black areas shadows or large areas of water (lakes)?



They are shadows.

*Also, the resolution is not so good on that image. If you want to get into the lunar anomaly game you are going to have to step it up a notch and start using better images.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by arianna

Are the large black areas shadows or large areas of water (lakes)?



They are shadows.

*Also, the resolution is not so good on that image. If you want to get into the lunar anomaly game you are going to have to step it up a notch and start using better images.


Exuberant1, Did you spot the false crater?

May I suggest that anyone looking at the above image examine it very closely. The terrain does not correspond with the outline of the shadows cast. There is also a hyro-electric plant in the image which is quite plain to observe.

As a matter of interest I do usually employ better images for lunar exploration. The image shown above is an older image but suitable for displaying large surface features.
edit on 26-8-2011 by arianna because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
Are the large black areas shadows or large areas of water (lakes)?
Once more, with a higher contrast, things look worse and artificial, as you can see when comparing it with the original photo.
(Click for full size)


edit on 26/8/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Firstly, I have to apologise to members for introducing a different topic into this thread.

ArMaP, Thank you for posting the original image.

I agree with you that when the contrast is increased some of the detail may be lost. The image I posted above was shadow-enhaced with minimal use of changes to the brightness and contrast levels.

What I have been researcing for many years is the lunar surface detail which can only be realized by a degree of enhancement as most of the downloaded images are too 'flat' and washed-out to discern any recognizable detail.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
What I have been researcing for many years is the lunar surface detail which can only be realized by a degree of enhancement as most of the downloaded images are too 'flat' and washed-out to discern any recognizable detail.
That's the problem, when an image is too "flat" we cannot do a thing to make it better, we can only make it even "flatter" or make it look completely different, and that's no good either.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Getting back to the 'bouncing boulder' theory. Here are two images that members may find interesting.

The first is a crop from the original tiff image and the second is the same image processed and shadow-enhanced. I believe members will find the second image is a vast improvement on the original. The view shows that there are many built structures on the lunar surface at this location.

We are informed that the lunar atmosphere cannot support life. If this is the case, how is it possible that huge numbers of buildings and other structures were able to be constructed on the lunar surface? Members may be quite surprised at what can be observed in the second image. The second image shows that the large objects, referred to as 'boulders' and the associated 'boulder trails', are not what they appear to be as can be observed in the first image.

View the images carefully. I welcome your views, comments or criticism.

Here are the links to the images.

i985.photobucket.com...

i985.photobucket.com...

Reference for the image:

wms.lroc.asu.edu...



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Interesting images on this link. There are seriously long trails leading up to rocks and boulders all over the area. I took a series of 3 screen captures (briefly) to show one long trail, (sorry for the 3rd capture not being to the same scale, the keyboard commands also change the magnification, and I hurriedly left the page before realizing it).





We could have one of two (or more) things imaged here. Ancient ejected rocks from large impacts, (not seen), crater ejecta if you would, could account for the long trails.

Could be chunks of meteorites landing at sever angles that momentum rolled quite far.

At first I saw lots of trails and thought they were fissures, or filled ancient lava tubes, but found rocks at the end of nearly all of the trails, so I deduce they are momentum paths from impact or ejecta, from impacts not evident, (unless I further investigate). No more time right now for me. Would small meteorites creating these trails have a noticeable impact crater? I don't know, maybe I just didn't look long enough to find them,
edit on 29-8-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Illustronic, did you take a look at the second image?

If you did have a look you would realize that the views shown in the original image strip do not show the 'hidden' detail. The objects that appear as boulders and the trails are not boulders or trails at all. Here is the link for any member that missed it the first time round.

i985.photobucket.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
The first is a crop from the original tiff image and the second is the same image processed and shadow-enhanced. I believe members will find the second image is a vast improvement on the original.
It's not an improvement, the image has lost lots of detail in the middle tones, making it look like a photocopy.


The view shows that there are many built structures on the lunar surface at this location.
Why do you say that, what makes you think those are built structures and not natural features?


We are informed that the lunar atmosphere cannot support life.
We are informed that the lunar atmosphere is almost non-existent.


If this is the case, how is it possible that huge numbers of buildings and other structures were able to be constructed on the lunar surface? Members may be quite surprised at what can be observed in the second image. The second image shows that the large objects, referred to as 'boulders' and the associated 'boulder trails', are not what they appear to be as can be observed in the first image.
I'm not surprised that you see those things, also, I am not surprised that you consider the second image closer to reality after losing so much detail, but I don't understand how you can look at the original and the processed image and see the processed image as better than the original.

How can you look at an area of the photo that was turned into a large white blob and that, in the original, we could see the smaller rocks, and say that the white blob is a better image.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
ArMaP, I will reply to your comments later, but in the meantime, click the link below. I have used a different process for this image. The location of the view is just to the right of the image posted above. A particular area of interest is to the center-right of the image.

Unfortunately, I am finding that many people are of the mind-set that there's nothing on the moon because they are being told there's nothing on the moon. The research I am involved with is revealing that this couldn't be further from the truth. The camera captures a great deal of fine detail that lays 'hidden' in many of the images until such time as it can revealed by other photographic processes.


i985.photobucket.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
I have used a different process for this image.
That's better, this way you get a better view of the texture of the ground, with less loss of detail than with the previous process, but you still lose some data.


Unfortunately, I am finding that many people are of the mind-set that there's nothing on the moon because they are being told there's nothing on the moon.
My mindset is that I haven't seen anything special on the Moon, and I don't see any special reason to expect to see one, but I am still looking.



The camera captures a great deal of fine detail that lays 'hidden' in many of the images until such time as it can revealed by other photographic processes.
I have seen many people with that idea that some process can get more detail from the photo than the original has, and, obviously, they are wrong. We can get better views of some areas while making it worse for others, and by joining several images that were processed in different ways we can get images that show an overall better image. We can also use several images from the same area to make what they call a "super-resolution" (if I'm not mistaken) version, as if the original resolution was bigger than it was (although the results are not as good as I would like), or use specific processes for specific situations, like the image below, that shows the process I use to enhance the (apparent) texture of an image (although I know that I am losing some "reality" by using that process).
(click for full size)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   
The image here is the same as the one I posted above. In this image I have highlighted many of the surface features that cannot be dismissed as being image artefacts. There are many anthropological shapes that are highlighted in yellow with structures highlighted in yellow or red. Many of the structures are recognizable and some have rectilinear form.

If you are of the opinion that no one except astronauts from Earth have been on the moon, I would ask you to carefully observe the highlighted detail contained in this particular image.

You may feel that I have overdone the highlighting but there is a reason for doing so which is to emphasize just how much detail is apparent in such a small area of terrain.

i985.photobucket.com...



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


All you managed to do with the original grayscale tiff file is provide for us less visual information while tripling the file size the original had, and compressing the modulation transitions. I now see less than the original provides.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
You may feel that I have overdone the highlighting but there is a reason for doing so which is to emphasize just how much detail is apparent in such a small area of terrain.
I think you did, with so many highlighted areas it's a little difficult to understand what we are supposed to see.

But I'm not surprised that you see many "anthropological shapes", some people even see them in strange places (like walls and lawns).

As for the structures, I don't see anything that looks like a structure.

One question: do you also see those things in the original image or only on the processed image?



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


ArMaP, I'm sorry you do not see any of the structures, but they are definitely there in plain site.

If I find an image where there are structures 'in you face' so to speak, I will post it



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


When talking with another ATS member that also sees things that I do not see, after some time I started understanding what he was seeing, although I didn't interpreted things the same way he did, so I might understand what you mean if you choose one structure and describe it (or draw it, whatever is easier for you).

PS: could you please answer the question on my previous post? Thanks in advance.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


ArMaP, Thank you for you reply.

In answer to your previous question, depending on the amount of zoom applied when viewing the original image strip what I see is vague embedded shapes which may be worthy of further investigation. This is the main reason why I use the shadow-enhancement method. This procedure helps to 'bring out' the observed embedded shapes to determine what the shapes really are.

I have shown some of the original and processed images containing structures and anthropological shapes (heads and faces) to friends and some members of the general public. Many of them say that during the first viewing nothing much registers with them, but after extended viewing the features start to become apparent. The anthropological shapes are important and I will explain more about these particular features later.

In future, when I post an image containing interesting features I will keep the highlighting down to a minimum and just select the object(s) to be examined.
edit on 31-8-2011 by arianna because: addition of text



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Here is a moonface for your collection:




posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I have to admit that the highlighted image I posted above was a bit over the top and I apologise for that. The image posted here is the same image, which is slightly lighter, but contains no highlighting.

There are many objects to view in the image, but members and visitors may be interested in an arch-shaped object that is a third of the way across the image from the left and approximately one inch (25mm) above the center line.


i985.photobucket.com...



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join