Lunar photo-enhancements reveal alien civilization evidence.

page: 24
19
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
In this image I have overdone things a bit with the highlighting but it's on purpose.

Many members say they cannot structures, buildings or anything that would appear to be artificial.

This image is a crop from the arrowed image shown above.

Remember that any alien structures may appear very unusual to say the least.




Direct view. i985.photobucket.com...




posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Each and every arrow points to circled "features" that are completely exactly similar to the areas in the photo that are not circled.

There are indicative of normal terrain features, as exampled all over the multitude of other photographs of the Lunar surface.

I (and the rest of us) are extremely interested in hearing about any other opinions, as suggested previously, where you personally have taken these images to show to scholarly individuals, to get their assessments.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Could you answer a question (besides all of those that I have asked and that you ignored)? Considering the size of the shadows, how high do you think those structures are?



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by arianna
 


Could you answer a question (besides all of those that I have asked and that you ignored)? Considering the size of the shadows, how high do you think those structures are?


To calculate dimensions I have used the base image of the arrowed image shown above. The resolution of this image is 0.5622m/ pixel. The majority of the structures range from 2.8m in height to over 8.4m for some of the larger structures. Many of the smaller structures have what would appear to be a small cupola added to the roof area which would add to the overall height.

The reason I have been ignoring many of your questions is because you ask too many. It would seem that everything I write on the forum is being pulled to pieces. This is what debunkers take pleasure in doing. Unfortunately, I do not have time with all the other academic and astronomical research I am currently persuing to answer multiple queries when a one-line question would be sufficient. We have to remember this is only a forum, not a Court of Law.
edit on 11-12-2011 by arianna because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
To calculate dimensions I have used the base image of the arrowed image shown above. The resolution of this image is 0.5622m/ pixel. The majority of the structures range from 2.8m in height to over 8.4m for some of the larger structures.
How did you get that 0.5622 metres per pixel resolution? The original image in the Arizona State University page is a 0.6 metres per pixel image, while the original raw image from which that one was made is 0.62 in the horizontal and 0.66 in vertical. Also, to get that height, what Sun height did you consider, seeing that we cannot get an height just by using the length of the shadows?


The reason I have been ignoring many of your questions is because you ask too many.
One of the reasons I ask to many questions is because I want to know what you mean and do not provide enough data on your own, as you can see with the questions I needed to ask just above this paragraph.


Unfortunately, I do not have time with all the other academic and astronomical research I am currently persuing to answer multiple queries when a one-line question would be sufficient.
Those questions wouldn't be needed if you provided all the information needed in your posts. I thought that serious scientific work is accompanied by the data to replicate the things that are being reported, but I can be wrong.


We have to remember this is only a forum, not a Court of Law.
That's easy, if it was a Court of Law you would had to answer.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by arianna
To calculate dimensions I have used the base image of the arrowed image shown above. The resolution of this image is 0.5622m/ pixel. The majority of the structures range from 2.8m in height to over 8.4m for some of the larger structures.
How did you get that 0.5622 metres per pixel resolution? The original image in the Arizona State University page is a 0.6 metres per pixel image, while the original raw image from which that one was made is 0.62 in the horizontal and 0.66 in vertical. Also, to get that height, what Sun height did you consider, seeing that we cannot get an height just by using the length of the shadows?


This image was cropped from the main image strip. The crop was 937 pixels wide with a resolution of 0.6m per pixel which gave a distance from edge-to-edge of 562.2m. As I resized the image to 1000 pixels wide the resolution changed to become 562.2 divided by 1000 = 0.5622m per pixel.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


See, it wasn't too hard or time consuming, was it?


That's why I always try (I sometimes forget
) to post all the relevant information when I post images that were altered by me in some way.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 



What I want to know is WHY you keep cropping and rotating the image YOU DONT NEED TO!!!!

You are trying to claim your so called structures are up to 8 mtrs high is that right? Please explain this here is an UNBUTCHERED image ie you have not touched!



The large rock bottom left is 15 mtrs across approx the smaller rocks further up the image are much smaller THEY ALL CAST A SHADOW!

Below is same picture using the burn filter in gimp 2.6 to show the terrain and not butcher the image like you! The surface detail is more obvious all the lumps,bumps,ridges and dips than the image above IT'S NOT STRUCTURES.



IF your so called objects did actually exist they would also cast a shadow THEY DONT! all that you are doing is making the surface terrain show ie al the lumps and bumps and the surface dips etc its not structures.

Its all because of the angle of the sunlight and the exposure of the picture what you are doing is overenhancing contrast and shadows that's what gives the weird texture you think is structures!

You claimed many years of experience with images I suggest a refresher course ASAP!
edit on 11-12-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-12-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
wmd_2008, sorry but you're sailing way off course. Best to enhance image using Photoshop.

Just take a look at the sectional crop below if you don't believe there are structures on the Moon.

I don't see any rocks but there are plenty of built structures showing in this small section. Take note of the group of buildings near the top of the image and to the right is a very tall structure that could possibly be a water tower.





posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


I will ask again:

At the resolution of about 1/2 meter per pixel.....why aren't these so-called "structures" far, far, far more evident?

Compare to other images at similar resolutions.

And, one more thing to ponder: Where are the "roadways"???

Oh, and sorry but "water tower"?? On the Moon, in a near perfect vacuum environment? Come on, use some common sense........

edit on Sun 11 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
Take note of the group of buildings near the top of the image and to the right is a very tall structure that could possibly be a water tower.
Could you please paint over the "water tower"? It would be easier to know what you're talking about if you pointed them to us, we cannot see them, remember?

Thanks in advance.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


WHY dont they cast a shadow in the untouched picture its you that is wrong!



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by arianna
Take note of the group of buildings near the top of the image and to the right is a very tall structure that could possibly be a water tower.
Could you please paint over the "water tower"? It would be easier to know what you're talking about if you pointed them to us, we cannot see them, remember?

Thanks in advance.


The group of structures is rectangled in red and what could possibly be a water tower in yellow.





posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 



.....what could possibly be a water tower in yellow.


I am sorry, but you are ascribing vertical attributes to what are obviously horizontal images of natural terrain features.

Also, did you take note of the direction of lighting in that image??

Any prominently standing structure of any height would, of necessity, cast a shadow, correct?

Look carefully, once again. At the angle of the sunlight illuminating the scene, and the particular absence of any shadows to indicate a "water tower" or anything similar is present.


{edit} I want to show you an example, in this video, of "wrong shadows"....it's something I noticed, and it clearly shows the laziness of the makers of the advert.

As you watch this brief (30 second) ad spot, note the shadows of the trees, and of the boy in the background. The light source is from the left, as we view it, yes?

Now, at the end of the advert, note the two adult actors in the "foreground", and especially the shadow cast by the male actor, as he moves to the back in the shot. This is an obvious composite, and sloppy at that. But, it illustrates the fact of shadows, and how they can be a bane (or a benefit) to understanding:



edit on Sun 11 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
wmd_2008, The 'large rock' you keep referring to is NOT a rock. It is a large structure constructed of what would appear to be a light-colored building material which has excellent reflective properties. That's why the shape appears so bright in the original image.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by arianna
 


I will ask again:

At the resolution of about 1/2 meter per pixel.....why aren't these so-called "structures" far, far, far more evident?

Compare to other images at similar resolutions.

And, one more thing to ponder: Where are the "roadways"???

Oh, and sorry but "water tower"?? On the Moon, in a near perfect vacuum environment? Come on, use some common sense........

edit on Sun 11 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)


I have not seen 'roadways' in the images but the viewpoint is quite a distance above the surface. What there appears to be is some form of block infrastructure relating to the layout of the structures so it is quite possible that there may be tracks or roads in between the structures.

Why shouldn't there be water towers on the Moon? If there is an alien existence surviving on the surface I am sure they would have provided a method of storing water at a great height due to the low gravity factor.

Who says it a perfect vacuum environment?



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
ProudBird, you have not said anything about the group of structures contained in the red rectangle. If you had looked carefully you would see that there is a tall tower rising above the other structures which is not casting a shadow.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 



Why shouldn't there be water towers on the Moon?


Because it's an absurd notion.



If there is an alien existence surviving on the surface I am sure they would have provided a method of storing water at a great height due to the low gravity factor.





There are so many wrong assumptions there, not sure where to begin......



Who says it a perfect vacuum environment?


The surface of the Moon is a vacuum. There is no substantive atmosphere. The surface of Mars is a "tropical zone" in comparison to the Moon's.....and, an exposed Human on the surface of Mars would die there, just as one would die on the Moon's surface. If exposed, and unprotected.

Humans on Mars will need a pressure suit. Not just a face mask, but a full pressure suit to enclose the body completely. There is a region of Mars, that is very low elevation, where the atmospheric pressure is just high enough for liquid water to exist on the surface.

Here is a color-coded depiction of the terrain of Mars:

Image


(I focus on Mars because it's far more fascinating than the Moon).

The impact basin known as Hellas Planitia is shown, in deep purple, as the lowest elevation on the Martian surface.


The depth of the crater (7152-meters (23,000 ft) below the standard topographic datum of Mars) explains the atmospheric pressure at the bottom: 1,155 Pa (11.55 mbar, 0.17 psi, or 0.01 atm). This is 89% higher than the pressure at the topographical datum (610 Pa, or 6.1 mbar or 0.09 psi) and above the triple point of water, suggesting that the liquid phase would be transient (would evaporate over time) if the temperature would rise above 0 °C (32 °F).



This is where the atmospheric pressure is suitable for liquid water, and I presume, a Human could survive without a pressure suit (after appropriate decompression measures were taken, to prevent an occurrence of the "bends").


edit on Sun 11 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Water towers don't seem feasible to me on the lunar surface, maybe located underground.


Pressurization occurs through the hydrostatic pressure of the elevation of water; for every 10.20 centimetres (4.016 in) of elevation, it produces 1 kilopascal (0.145 psi) of pressure. 30 m (98.43 ft) of elevation produces roughly 300 kPa (43.511 psi), which is enough pressure to operate and provide for most domestic water pressure and distribution system requirements. Hydrostatic pressure is the pressure exerted by a fluid at equilibrium due to the force of gravity


source: source: en.wikipedia.org...

Gravity and lunar vacuum


Light gases, like hydrogen, are heated to velocities sufficiently high enough to escape the gravitational pull. Most gases are eventually removed by the solar wind. As a result there is essentially no atmosphere to create an atmospheric pressure on the surface, as we experience on earth from pressure created by the weight of the column of air above us. The atmospheric pressure on the surface of the moon was measured at ~1x 10-12 mm Hg (760 mm Hg = 1 atm= 1.01E5 Pa = 101 kPa), which is so little pressure that the moon can be considered a hard vacuum. This is a pressure that can only be achieved on earth in special vacuum chambers.


source: education.ksc.nasa.gov...

Plus the CME's, solar wind, and radiation makes a tower less than appealing. Why go through all of the shielding, gravity/pumps, etc. when an underground system makes more sense?

And still by staring at your image, using a magnifying glass and imagination, I still don't see any structures that could possible be built and not of a natural formation.

Anxiously awaiting the scientist reports that can be verified.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
wmd_2008, The 'large rock' you keep referring to is NOT a rock. It is a large structure constructed of what would appear to be a light-colored building material which has excellent reflective properties. That's why the shape appears so bright in the original image.


Suggest not only a refresher course on photoshop, also get your eyes tested and brush up on photographic exposure!

Dont like this but extreme zoom!



DONT say it's not a rock! ANYONE can see it is.

So still waiting what about your buildings 8mtr high in sunlight with NO shadow and no comment from you about that yet again!





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum