What's going on in Copernicus crater?

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 jerk, what data & what profit take a chill pill before you have a turn, YOU are asking others to post you claim you have good stuff so back it up! IT'S THAT SIMPLE!

What will you do when the LRO has taken pictures of that area at a better resolution than the orbiter 2 pics?

reply to post by wmd_2008


if it looks like nothing but dirt and rocks, and isn't a computer simulation,
or photo manip, i'll be more than willing to breathe a sigh of relief and return to my former state of
cheering for the space program and its affiliates. i still cheer for them on some subjects, but if
these images are hinting at civilization up there, and it's being with held, then naturally i'm not gonna
be thrilled about that. who would be? it's an interesting subject, regardless.
let's just say, if i posted what i have, the thread would grow to enormous size, the debunkers would increase, exponentially, particularly from places like bad astronomy and space.com, and the owners of ats and its moderators,would be put under severe pressure to do something about it. do you want to embark on that kind of
negative spiral ?

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.

reply to post by wmd_2008


This made me think, so I did a quick search:

What will you do when the LRO has taken pictures of that area at a better resolution than the orbiter 2 pics?

And, seems LROC is well on its way to keep adding more and better resolution. I expect this may have been brought up already (that some people are using 40+ year-old images to "see" things in them).

Here.

Universe Today link

In the ^ ^ ^ above link, second photo down:

Co pernicus

I'm sure there are more available.

Even a (sigh) YouTube, if you can see those videos with your Internet provider restrictions (It has 1080p resolution, so is probably worth a look-see):

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.

see this is what i don't like about threads like this. you mischaracterized my post by making it sound like i was talking about your other posts and not the post i was responding to. all this dodging and dashing around is not resolving the problem, only exacerbating it. you aren't clarifying anything, you're just making it harder and harder for me to trust a thing you say. if you want results, talk to me like i have a brain and eyes and not like you can twisty turny stuff around and i'll be too dense to notice

reply to post by ProudBird


for some reason, this reminds me of that large model of the moon they built and had a camera pan over its surface, to simulate moon landing locations for the astronauts. you know the one i mean?

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.

yeah and then they are shocked when you tell them that you don't think they're honestly attempting to answer the questions. something odd about that, doncha think? why so much trouble to prove nothing is there and then use crap that is not only not even remotely as high res, but also, extremely bright, so that no detail is present. it's bizarre.

reply to post by undo


All that video showed was a pan of one of the passes made by the LROC. To allow we (the viewers) up-close resolutions....as opposed to having to open the full, very tall and narrow image, in our Browsers and then stroll through it.

The models built for the Apollo simulators had to use the craft of model-makers, because back then they didn't have the sort of computer technology as we do in modern flight simulators. Even then, it was pretty crude....still, it was the "state of the art" that was also used for airliner simulators of that era.

In fact, much airline training was, by necessity, still being done in the real airplanes, in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Even into the 1980s, until the technology for landing simulations became so good that you could do ALL the training in the simulators, when the device was "landing certified".

Of course, the Astronauts were skilled pilots, and they had no choice but to make their first real landings with the real thing.....other flight training had the luxury of being here on Earth, and getting practice that way as well.

Much of the concept of flight sims came from NASA, and of course military applications. For airlines, at first they considered the initial high cost of such devices as too much.....but, they would see them eventually as a cost savings (fuel, wear and tear on the airplanes) and also a major, major safety enhancement. Many fatal crashes occurred, during live airline training over the years.


The Lunar mock-up terrain was much like this version of an Earth landscape, with the mechanically computer-controlled camera, and a CCTV link to the video screens to let the pilots "see" out the windshields.

Introduction of Visual Systems

There isn't much in-depth history of this online, unless you dig deeper. The library probably has a wealth of books on the subject.


A history of the company CAE is found, one of the innovators in civilian aviation (with military applications as well).

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.

www.cae.com...

reply to post by ProudBird


pondering it made me wonder if lucas got his idea for his revolutionary camera, from nasa
see video, notice nice panning shot of stationary model of an imperial star destroyer, from the bottom.

reply to post by undo



I truly, truly hope this isn't some "clever" way to suggest that Apollo was "faked"? I've been down this road, many times.....:

.....notice nice panning shot of stationary model....

Lucas, circa 1978 (well, his cinematographers) didn't develop that technique first.

As a Star Trek devotee, I am well aware of the "behind the scenes" technique for the filming of their Enterprise shooting miniature model....it was around eleven feet long. (That was the second model.....they built a three-foot version first, and used it only minimally). It was simply more feasible to have it stay fixed, and dolly the camera. They found that moving the model would cause too much shaking, and spoil the shots.

They used "blue screen" back then, as opposed to the "green screen" you see more often today. Here, a shot on the set in the studio, from the episode "Space Seed" (the story that was fleshed out for the big-screen "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan"):



(For trivia on moving the models, watch the episode "The Doomsday Machine". The U.S.S. Constellation, sister ship to the Enterprise, is actually a small AMT plastic model kit they bought, and then gave it "battle damage"....in some shots you can see the warp nacelles wiggling terribly).

Of course, with LucasFilms, it did include the beginnings (in the entire SFX industry too) of the computer-synced camera motion, (Motion-Control Photography) that could be repeated over and over again, with each shot composited onto the next. This was innovated in the mid 1970s. But, put to minimal (and very basic) use for Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey.

History of Motion Control Photography

reply to post by ProudBird


They must have went back and cleaned up Copernicus crater of all the 'US v Alien war' debris. Oh! I forgot Peter Beter did say that it wasn't aliens, it was in fact Russians

reply to post by ProudBird


no, i don't think the moon landings were faked.
i was saying i wonder if that camera is where he got his camera idea from. i know his storyboards were painted by a nasa artist, so maybe he had friends in the camera department. it was just theorizing on his camera. cause it revolutionized movie making. chalk it up to another innovation nasa was directly or indirectly responsible for.

reply to post by arianna


I see scanning lines of some form or the other, and if they were towers, to what purpose in the middle of a crater or cratered area.

reply to post by undo

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.

Where, exactly, are they? To me, they appear to be nearer the camera than the farther wall. I think you may be having difficulty of a foreground/background nature:



You are seeing flat patches defined by the boundaries of hills in the foreground:

Originally posted by DJW001
You are seeing flat patches defined by the boundaries of hills in the foreground:

I think a bigger image would be more helpful, just looking at that we cannot know what we are looking at, right?

reply to post by ArMaP

I think a bigger image would be more helpful, just looking at that we cannot know what we are looking at, right?

That's my point exactly! The supposed "plateaus" are flat ground "cropped" by hills to look regular.

reply to post by DJW001


I suppose it is all relative, flat ground on the moon will also have craters, and all craters have rim uplifts. I don't even understand why they call the Moon's Aristarchus plateau, a plateau, seems more whimsical than scientific. That said any flat plain much higher than usual on the Moon's surface requires much more research than just mechanical erosion, which is more Earth based terminology. Come to think of it, a hi-rise plateau on the Moon should also be the oldest part of the Moon, and that doesn't make much sense either, unless the Moon is a bit flaky

reply to post by papajake


This is the best I can get, for "Bone Yard A1" and "Bone Yard A2".

reply to post by DJW001


i know what you're trying to say, but that's not what i'm seeing.
what i'm seeing are clearly defined straight lines that aren't scan lines, some of which are not
punctuated because of the presence of rims, such as the graded area you chose to leave out of the
image, which just happens to be the most pronounced and obvious of them all. as a result, i really
am having a hard time taking you seriously and think perhaps you're just trolling for fun.

GUY's PEASE! Even I....who know E.T. to be a reality....find the concept of seeing faces and structures on the surface of Mar's....or even more rediculous....Humanoid SKULLS....half burried in the sand and dust....as nothing more than the Human mind MATRIXING a pattern of rocks or sand or shadow....into familiar....hardwired into our Genetic Mental Abilities that are used as soon as the eyes can see...for facial recognition....so as to remeber which adult is Mom or Dad.

People are good at seeing faces or familiar objects in a field of various patterns....in this case a Planets barren surface. Mar's very well should of had life at one time....but too amy years have past for any...SKULL....not to have been particlized by the planets harsh enviroment. Split Infinity