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.
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by gort51
Too many questions, not enough answers.
Every one of those "questions" has an answer. Some of the "questions" are also not really valid anyway, since they are based on misconceptions in some way or another.
But, if someone cannot comprehend how a planetary body like the Moon, that has existed for over 4 1/2 Billion years, can come to have all the features we see, then I wonder if it's even possible to explain it here on ATS, in such a Forum.
Originally posted by ArMaP
So, when you said "In future, I will apply text to some of the images indicating what I see" you were only bluffing, or did you change your mind?
Originally posted by arianna
I offer no explanation text as the features showing in the image are sufficient.
OK.
Originally posted by arianna
No ArMaP, I was not bluffing and have not changed my mind.
You could have only used part of the image, with the text covering the rest.
With regards to the last image which shows many of the anthropological shapes spotted at this one particular location, where could I have placed the text?
Even if the structures are real and artificial, you are letting your imagination take over when you talk about things like "residents", or do you see any signs of those structures being inhabited?
Therefore, as there is a large number of shapes showing which, according to the scientific world should not be seen at all, gives us a good idea of the resident's artistic concepts, what they look like and a reasonable indication as to the number of structures.
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by arianna
Could you please explain just one, or two of where those many "arrows" are pointing?
Because, for the life of me, each "ARROW" points to....well, nothing at all.
The "arrows" are labeled as pointing at "structures" but.....they only 'point' to natural features.
Much confusion....(??)
one has to concentrate for a while on the content before the shapes and objects become apparent.
Originally posted by dcmb1409
one has to concentrate for a while on the content before the shapes and objects become apparent.
You have got to be kidding. I know of no school, institution, or agency that would teach nor accept such technique as a professional way to interpret data in most any form for a client. Stare at anything long enough and all kind of things become apparent between the eye and brain connection.
I'm confused as to the logic behind the above quote. In the real world are you saying that satellite images have to be corrupted and stared at for a while so the processor can identify any ground object of interest?
I want a job in the room where you sit and stare at images for a while and make assumptions of what you see and then get recognized and highly paid for this guess work.
I have an uneasy feeling someone is having a good time at everyone's expense.
Originally posted by IronDogg
Hi Arianna,
I was just curious and wanted to ask you what the scale is in the image with all the arrows pointing to the artificial objects to help give me a better perspective. In particular, I am wondering what the potential diameter of those large pipes may be. Is the scale of the picture such that those large pipes are 1 foot in diameter, 100 feet in diameter, 1000 feet in diameter, or 10,000 feet in diameter?
You don't have to tell me the exact scale of your enhanced image if you do not want to share that, but please let me know what ball park the scale of the picture is in to help get a better perspective of those objects.
The resolution for the image is approximately 0.56m/pixel.
....but it looks to me that when they walked to the Surveyor site, they went one way around that small (6 meter/20 foot) pit, and when they came back they went around the other way.
Rocks and craters make sense.
Originally posted by arianna
You have to concentrate on a particular part of the image for a while to see if anything is recognizable or appears to make sense make.
But they do not give that impression to all people, what do you see that gives you that impression?
It's not easy when one is dealing with images that give the impression of being obfuscated somewhere along the line.
The images you posted are all based on high resolution images, so why do you say that?
You cannot compare the views shown here with hi-res images.
How do you know?
But don't worry, there's a host of artificial evidence on the lunar surface just waiting to be found.
Just do not over do it.
Research is in progress at the present time to develop a procedure that may help to improve the quality of the enhanced images so that better identification of the surface features can be achieved.