It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by undo
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by undo
You were the one with the boast not to challenge you but it seems YOU are the one that wont take it up you say you have better stuff well post it.
I would really love to see some real evidence and as I have said to rdunk and others on here if you post something thats the real deal I WILL BACK IT TO THE HILT!!!
The thing is that when you have people that dont REALLY undestand how photography/digital imaging works it ends up being a joke so as I said before undo DO YOUR WORST you claim youv'e got good stuff well post it or shut it one or the other!
It seems all you want is a bunch of mutal back slappers what a boring place this would be then would probably be like the living moon for instance
i'm warning you. it's fair warning. what, are you that jerk that took all our data and made a hefty profit off it and now you're back trying to drum up more material to cash in on?
What will you do when the LRO has taken pictures of that area at a better resolution than the orbiter 2 pics?
Originally posted by dcmb1409
reply to post by undo
Bullying? I never told you to take a hike like I owned this thread. Look back and see all of the evidence presented and except for one post it was all images and respectable sites to show a normal impact crater and to make that point. And I think that your belief in shadows and grainy images and trying to pass it off as proof unsubstantiated by any science or clear visual records is more harmful than what I posted.
At least real data was presented in my post and you called it bunk but yet I am suppose to believe your theory on distorted images. I need to look up the term deny ignorance.
Originally posted by papajake
Here is a photo taken from a different angle under different lighting conditions with a camera that did not have three levels of potential error
With all due respect, I don't believe that is a fair comparison. That's like comparing the smoothness of apple skin to the divots on an orange peel. What I'd like to see is a single high-resolution photo of the exact composition and lighting of the original Copernicus photo that we have been examining, without "pieces of dust, scratches and scan lines". Only then will you have an apples-to-apples comparison.
1967 to 1968 - This period was highlighted by CAE's first simulator sale to an aircraft manufacturer in the United States - an L-1011 for Lockheed. The company also broke new ground by implementing its newly designed 6 degree of freedom motion system on a KLM Boeing 747 simulator.
By 1968 the simulation field was making advances in two main areas. CAE pioneered the use of CRT displays in instructor stations, which greatly reduced the operator's workload. Visual systems, which used a TV camera to scan a scaled down model of an airport and its surrounding area, were also being developed.
.....notice nice panning shot of stationary model....
they are on the wall of the crater, and i can see them from the overhead too. and from the overhead, they are still at an angle, because they are on the crater wall, not on the crater floor.
I think a bigger image would be more helpful, just looking at that we cannot know what we are looking at, right?
Originally posted by DJW001
You are seeing flat patches defined by the boundaries of hills in the foreground: