Lunar photo-enhancements reveal alien civilization evidence.

reply to post by arianna


Sorry but we have far to many members on here who zoom into pictures to much, try to enhance them with the random use of various filters etc on whatever software they happen to be using but ignore as pointed out that the original image shows what is at the location.

Sure looks like someone used a big assed Dozer to make roads ,reminds me of a roughed out construction site,with extra large machinary

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

On the contrary. I see a "Snoopy" head with sunglasses:

I'm araid to disappoint your sense of humour. That's not a "snoopy". It's two very large objects.

edit on 14-11-2011 by arianna because: (no reason given)

Yes, they are large objects (or large features) -- But they could very easily just be rocks and/or hills and depressions, which are creating light and shadow effects. There is nothing about them that looks artificial (contrary to my joke about Snoopy -- that is simply "pareidolia", like seeing a bunny rabbit in a cloud).

Your enhancement process has destroyed all of the subtle differences in light intensity and grayscale gradient, so all you are left with are over-contrasting blobs. You've destroyed too much subtle detail to make the images meaningful.

Originally posted by Oldtimer2
Sure looks like someone used a big assed Dozer to make roads ,reminds me of a roughed out construction site,with extra large machinary

do you think it looks like that even in the original version of the image, before the OP over-enhanced it by over-contrasting and zooming in?


To me it looks like trails made by rolling boulders (you can see boulders at the end of two of two trails). The boulders could be rolling downhill after some event (possibly an impact) that either shook them loose from where they were sitting, or they were rocks ejected from the impact.

The original image does NOT look like roughed-out roads made by machinery.

Because the majority of you have no sense of even basic Astronomy, let me enlighten you a little. Have you ever heard of ejecta?

These are lines coming out of a crater, like rays on the relief of the moon, they are formed when an object collides and as a result and the formation of the crater, the powder/dust that is spread from it like a splash appears as rays or patterns of whitish dust forming whole lines (coming also from the fact that if you played golf on the Moon, the ball would fly much bigger distance due to the lack of gravity thus explaining the very long patterns formed) . This is what I'm seeing on these pictures so no, no aliens or life on the Moon.

Looking at the original image I would agree with members that the tracks do look like boulder trails - but they are not what they seem. The trails have been laid out with constructions to appear as 'dashed' boulder trails when seen from a great distance above.

What interests me about the view is everything else in the view which can only be realized after enhancement of the original image. The finer surface detail cannot be seen in the original.

Originally posted by Imtor
This is what I'm seeing on these pictures so no, no aliens or life on the Moon.

I suggest you look at the original image source used by arianna; you can see that these tracks are inside the crater, on the crater walls, so they cannot be ejecta, right?

Here is a 3-D image of the scene that may help to clarify what is on the surface but you will need a pair of red and blue glasses to experience the depth factor when viewing 3-D.

A larger version can be viewed using the 'Direct link' below.



Direct link: i985.photobucket.com...

reply to post by arianna


If you don't have two images taken from different angles then it's just a fake 3D effect, and so, useless for those that really want to know what it shows.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by arianna

 

If you don't have two images taken from different angles then it's just a fake 3D effect, and so, useless for those that really want to know what it shows.

Not even fake 3-D. Using anaglyph (red/blue or red/green) "glasses" does not help. It's still a 2-D image.

But I gotta tell you that a good 3-D image can be constructed from a 2-D image. I used to belong to a 3-D forum and an Italian member used to turn 2-D Renaissance paintings into 3-D images with good depth. Unfortunately, I don't remember which 3-D forum it was as there are many. There are interesting videos on YouTube dealing with turning 2-D into 3-D and you can see excellent 3-D images from 2-D at: www.jim3dlong.com...

If you have "free" vision in which you can "cross" or "widen" your eyes you can see the images in the above website without glasses. But he also features photos that require the anaglyph (red/blue or red/green) but I don't think that even he could turn the moon photo into 3-D.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by arianna

 

If you don't have two images taken from different angles then it's just a fake 3D effect, and so, useless for those that really want to know what it shows.

No ArMaP. You do not need to seperate images. The 3-D effect relies on 'horizontal offset'. Therefore, if you create two independent images from a single view and during the 3-D process you offset one image against the other the desired effect can be achieved. It's a relatively simple process to produce 3-D images from a single image using Photoshop.

If you haven't viewed the large anaglyph with a pair of red/blue specs, I think you should. The depth is most noticeable. The anaglyph also clarifies exactly what is on the surface and what the dashed marks really are. As I have said before, what we are seeing in the anaglyph is completely different from the impression created by the content showing in the original image.

reply to post by The Shrike

It's easy to make those apparently 3D images, we just need to change one (or preferably both) image(s) to make them look like they are taken from different places, introducing some fake perspective.

Our brains do the rest.

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by arianna

 

If you don't have two images taken from different angles then it's just a fake 3D effect, and so, useless for those that really want to know what it shows.

No ArMaP. You do not need to seperate images. The 3-D effect relies on 'horizontal offset'. Therefore, if you create two independent images from a single view and during the 3-D process you offset one image against the other the desired effect can be achieved. It's a relatively simple process to produce 3-D images from a single image using Photoshop.

No arianna --

Your 3D image is a fake 3D effect. You need to view something from two different angles to get depth perception. That's why we have two eyes that are side-by-side; each eye gives our brain a slightly different view of the world seen from two slightly different angles.

Real 3D images require two images taken at different angles -- just like our two eyes see things from two different angles. You can't get 3D using the same image twice and simply offsetting them. Your left and right images are not as viewed from different angles, so it can't work.

Below is an example of an old 3D stereoscope image. The left and right images will be seen separately by a person's left and right eye when seen through one of those old-fashioned stereoscope viewers (very much like the red and blue are seen separately by each eye in a red/blue 3D image).

As you can see, the left image is slightly different that the right image. Look at the pole behind the woman. It is closer to her head in the right eye image that it is in the left eye image. That's because these are two totally different pictures taken at slightly different angles.

When the two images are viewed separately by each eye at the same time (which is what the viewing device does, and what the red/blue glasses do), the human brain translates it into a 3D image -- an image with depth. This is because each eye will see the subject of the image slightly differently:



When the above images are combined with the stereoscopic viewer, the brain will see this image in 3D, For example, the left-eye image will provide more of a view of the left ride of the woman's face, while the the right-eye image will, provide more of a view of the right ride of the woman's face.

There is different information being gathered by the left and right eye of the person viewing the image, thus the brain sees it as 3D

If all you did to create your 3D image was take the same image and simply copy it, and then offset it, then there is absolutely no way to get a real 3D image from that. You may get something that looks odd through your red and blue glasses that you may be mistaken is 3D, but it would NOT be 3D.

In your fake 3D image, the left-eye image is exactly the same as your right-eye image (except for the color), so there is no "different" information being gathered left and right eye of the person viewing it. Therefore there will be no depth perception.

You all seem to be missing the point as to why this type of 3-D view can be realized. The viewpoint to surface is a large distance so it does not matter so much with regard to having two seperate images. A single image will suffice to produce the left and right views.

Anyway, have any of you keen commentators viewed the large anaglyph. If you have you would have realized that what can be seen are many built structures and not a boulder trail in sight, but who could have built all these structures? They are on the surface so it had to be a race of beings that could cope with the lunar atmosphere.

I would ask that you look at the large 3-D image first before posting all this negativity. ArMaP keeps going on about the enhancement process I use 'destroys' data. So it may, but what I am more concerned about is the end result which in this case shows that the boulder trails are not trails at all but a carefully laid out set of structures. It is only the detail in the original image that tends to give viewers the impression that the 'dashed' lines are boulder trails.

reply to post by arianna


Are you smoking something THERE are no structures there look at the resolution of the picture you are working with ie size on the surface/pixel.

Look at this image of an apollo 17 lander at 25cm/pixel



Your pictures show nothing but ROCKS!

Originally posted by arianna
You all seem to be missing the point as to why this type of 3-D view can be realized. The viewpoint to surface is a large distance so it does not matter so much with regard to having two seperate images. A single image will suffice to produce the left and right views.

I don't understand how one image can suffice.

For a true 3D image, the left and right eye need to be presented with different information....
...and being a different color and being offset doesn't qualify.

For example, if a person was viewing a ball, the right eye wold see parts of the right side of the ball that the left eye CAN'T see, and the left eye will be able to see parts of the left hand side of the ball the the right eye CAN'T see. In that example, the right eye and the left eye will be presented with slightly different information about the ball, and the brain turns that into 3D.

Besides the color, what different information is being presented in the left-eye and right-eye parts of your image?

ArMaP keeps going on about the enhancement process I use 'destroys' data. So it may, but what I am more concerned about is the end result which in this case shows that the boulder trails are not trails at all but a carefully laid out set of structures. It is only the detail in the original image that tends to give viewers the impression that the 'dashed' lines are boulder trails.

Over-enhancement destroys original detail that really exists, and creates FALSE details that are NOT in the original image and do NOT really exist.

I don't doubt that there are methods of photo enhancement that actually CAN bring out details, but the fact that your over-enhancement shows things that are obviously craters (as seen in the original) as structures that look like they protrude from the surface is an sign that your images have been "enhanced" waaayyyyy too much.

A little enhancement may be a good thing. Too much enhancement destroys the meaning of the original.

Originally posted by arianna
You all seem to be missing the point as to why this type of 3-D view can be realized. The viewpoint to surface is a large distance so it does not matter so much with regard to having two seperate images. A single image will suffice to produce the left and right views.

Then why do 3d cameras and systems have 2 lenses or 2 cameras side by side are, with your method you have 2 identical images are you just making things up as you go along.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by arianna
You all seem to be missing the point as to why this type of 3-D view can be realized. The viewpoint to surface is a large distance so it does not matter so much with regard to having two seperate images. A single image will suffice to produce the left and right views.

Then why do 3d cameras and systems have 2 lenses or 2 cameras side by side are, with your method you have 2 identical images are you just making things up as you go along.

Yes, two cameras are ised for close to medium distance 3-D photographic work. There are two things to consider about the above 3-D image namely, the horizontal offset and the way the brain perceives the information received from each eye.

Bearing in mind the distance the viewpoint is above the surface in the above image, consider a flat open scene and in the far distance is a tall slim object. The width of the distant view is say 600 yards. Would shifting the camera horizontally three to four inches to capture another shot of the distant object make any difference when viewing both images of the object?

In the original post - I see nothing anomalous - except for the red arrow pointing at something too small to really study.

Originally posted by arianna
No ArMaP. You do not need to seperate images.

The 3D effect is based on parallax, that's why we need two different images.

The 3-D effect relies on 'horizontal offset'. Therefore, if you create two independent images from a single view and during the 3-D process you offset one image against the other the desired effect can be achieved. It's a relatively simple process to produce 3-D images from a single image using Photoshop.

The 3D effect relies on "horizontal offset" of the original scene, not of the horizontal offset of the photo, that's just wrong.

A real 3D effect is enough to apply trigonometry and get relatively accurate distances, if we know the amount of horizontal offset when the photos were taken.

If you haven't viewed the large anaglyph with a pair of red/blue specs, I think you should.

I did, I have three pairs of those red-cian glasses from 30 years ago, when they passed the "Monster from the Black Lagoon".

The depth is most noticeable.

No.

The anaglyph also clarifies exactly what is on the surface and what the dashed marks really are.

No.

As I have said before, what we are seeing in the anaglyph is completely different from the impression created by the content showing in the original image.

I don't think they are that different.