Lunar photo-enhancements reveal alien civilization evidence.

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.

No, you are thinking about it the wrong way. If the photos are taken too far away then it would be difficult to make a 3D image from two photos taken with a short distance from each other, because the angle from the two points of view to the target would be too similar for the 3D effect to work.

Anyway, have any of you keen commentators viewed the large anaglyph.

Yes.

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?No, no structures visible, only boulders, craters, tracks made, most likely, by the boulders, and other common geological (selenological ?) features.

They are on the surface so it had to be a race of beings that could cope with the lunar atmosphere.

Not necessarily, we (humans) went to the Moon and we could cope with the almost non-existing lunar atmosphere.

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.

OK, lets do the same thing with some text.

Imagine that, instead of the image, you had this text:

"Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish he’d go away..."

Now image that your enhancement, instead of maximizing the dark areas and removing the brighter areas, duplicates the vowels and removes half of the consonants. It would result in something like this:

"Yyeeseeraayy, uupoo the taaii,
Ii mee aa maa whoo waasn' theeee
Hee waasn’ theeee aagaaiin oodaayy
Ii wwiish, Ii wwiish hee’d oo aawwaayy..."

(I may have failed in some places, as I don't even know if a 'w' is a vowel or how to classify the 'h' )

What do you think of that text? It sure shows more of part of the original data (more vowels), but do we get more information from it? Or do we just get the original information, but mangled? We can still understand what it says, but that's because we are expecting those words to have a specific meaning.

It is only the detail in the original image that tends to give viewers the impression that the 'dashed' lines are boulder trails.

I don't know if you see what you are saying; if the detail in the original image gives the viewers the impression that the dashed lines are boulder trails, what you have been doing all these days is trying to destroy the original image to avoid that impression. Looking at it this way, it looks like you are trying to find something that isn't there, like the man on the stairs in the little poem from which I got the above snippet.

About the 3D image, two things:

1 - if only one image is needed, why do they need two photos to make the 3D models made with the photos from Mars Express?

2 - if you can make a 3D image from just one photo, can you make one from the photo below?

reply to post by ArMaP


Sorry ArMaP he will use this as a reason not to use your picture

Originally posted by arianna

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?

Landscape shot might be better?

Right arianna lets kill this mounds myth stone dead!

Look at this picutre inside the black circle is a crater and 3 dashes from a trail, the yellow arrow is the direction the sun light is coming from!

The bottom of the crater is in shadow due to the direction of the sun light NOW look at the dashes of the trail , now if they were MOUNDS as you claim the shadow would be on the opposite side!!!




Have a look at this MOUND







OR should that be a crater!!!!!









The real problem on here and it is understandable as its a conspiracy site MANY members WANT to find something far to much, it clouds there judgement the other problem is the easy access to photographic software and many memebers on many different forums use filters to prove a point when they have NO real idea what they are doing!

Originally posted by ArMaP


2 - if you can make a 3D image from just one photo, can you make one from the photo below?

Nope, but there is a small feeling of depth, lol

ArMaP, not really an ideal image but here's my version of the view.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Right arianna lets kill this mounds myth stone dead!

The artefact showing in your image gives the appearance of being a mound - but is it a mound?



When viewing the enhanced version of the scene it can be seen that it is something else.

reply to post by woogleuk

reply to post by arianna


Thanks for your versions.

This is what it looks like when using a second photo, taken slightly to the left of the one I posted before.


That's the difference between fake 3D and real (as possible in a 2D medium) 3D.

Edit: for those without red-blue glasses, here's a "cross-eye" version.

Originally posted by arianna
The artefact showing in your image gives the appearance of being a mound - but is it a mound?

No, it's a crater.

reply to post by arianna


YOU really need help if you think those trails are mounds.

Here is the help you need this is on the image futher down one of the boulders/rocks



No look at its shadow posiition!!!

This is the image I posted




Inside the black circle a crater, yellow arrow the sun light direction if what you claim are mounds their shadow would be in the same position as the rock ie opposite side from the craters.

EVERYONE can see that if you deny that then you really dont have a clue what you are doing or talking about!

ArMaP, as I said before not really an ideal view but I think my version is a better visualization of the 3-D effect.

If possible, can you post two images of the same view taken approx. 3 inches apart but make sure to the camera is 'square' and the verticals in both images will be upright and not on the skew as shown in your pair of images. I will produce a 3-D image from the pair of images you post.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by arianna

 

YOU really need help if you think those trails are mounds.

There's something wrong here, I have not said that the features are mounds or craters.

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by arianna

 

YOU really need help if you think those trails are mounds.

There's something wrong here, I have not said that the features are mounds or craters.

What makes you say that it doesn't look like a crater? I think it looks like a crater.


You seemed to be under the impression that the image gives the appearance of being a mound. I understand you didn't think it was a mound, but from your post below, I think it was clear that you thought it appeared to look like a mound. By the way, I never thought it looked like a mound.

Originally posted by arianna
The artefact showing in your image gives the appearance of being a mound - but is it a mound?

Sorry for creating that impression.

Maybe I should have written that to some people the feature may appear to be a mound or a crater.

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by arianna

 

I really dont see what you are looking at in any of the pics.

Just look like rock formations to me.

ditto
I really dont see what you are looking at in any of the pics.

Just look like rock formations to me.

Originally posted by arianna
Sorry for creating that impression.

Maybe I should have written that to some people the feature may appear to be a mound or a crater.

OK -- so why do you think the circled object in that image does NOT look like a crater?
What about it is "un-crater-like"?

Maybe you don't think it's a crater, but do you at least agree that it is a depression and not a protrusion (that it's an "innie", not an "outie")?

Originally posted by arianna
ArMaP, as I said before not really an ideal view but I think my version is a better visualization of the 3-D effect.

Your version looks "flat", with no signs of real depth, like in the shadow on the wall, it looks like the shadow is at the same distance as the farther part of the shelves.

If possible, can you post two images of the same view taken approx. 3 inches apart but make sure to the camera is 'square' and the verticals in both images will be upright and not on the skew as shown in your pair of images. I will produce a 3-D image from the pair of images you post.

Do you mean a pair of photos showing the same view but with the verticals really vertical?

reply to post by arianna


Just looks like surface features to me, nothing more, nothing less. Nothing that could be attributed to another life-form on the moon, anyways.

Here are some crazy moon facts that support the suspision of more than meets the eye when it come s to our moon. I personally thing the moon is the gateway that aliens use to travel from one side of the universe to the next. The moon was said to sound hallow when the astronauts landed on it, they claimed it rang like a bell. This would imply that there is cavernous systems below the surface. This is my opinion but i think the moon has a "stargate" type of transporter in its core. It is in my opinion a base for them and there port.

Interesting moon facts that has started to go agaist modern science theorys....ask Bill Nye

reply to post by arianna



Those are gravitational stress marks, or "lunar stretch marks." As the Moon orbits the Earth it's distance from the Earth varies and so do the gravitational forces creating tidal action upon the lunar surface and from within like squishing an under inflated balloon or ball.

You claim that no scientist will say for sure what the marks are, but Google is filled with lunar geologist's statements explaining exactly what the marks are. Many people I am sure have no idea what the marks are, but they're no experts. Like myself who had no idea what the marks were before Googling about them.