It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What's going on in Copernicus crater?

page: 13
9
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by papajake
Can you tell me where you got them or will you have to kill me if you do?
I can tell you, it was here, along with more photos from Lunar Orbiter. The one I used was the "2162_H3.tif [416.33 MB]" image. The "LO2Frame162H3.tif [2.20 GB]" at the end of the list doesn't have a better resolution and is a "raw" version, although it has the advantage of having each strip in a different file inside the TIFF (they open as independent layers on Photoshop).


Hi ArMap,

Thank you for the link. It was interesting to play around with those files, especially the "raw" version with the layers. The background layer (which I assume was the base layer used to line up the other strips) has very noticeable vertical lines. These line also appear in the final version but are not as apparent. Here is what I am talking about:

LO2Frame162H3-background:



LO2Frame162H3-Framelet_638:



Now (and this is all assumption on my part) if the base layer is the original photo, to remove those vertical lines would require a possible Gaussian type filter, levels adjustment, and maybe even image shifting. You can actually see the image shifting if you open the raw file and toggle between the base layer and the Framelet_638 layer.

So the problem with all this filtering, levels adjusting and image shifting could possibly distort an already bad photo to try and create a decent looking photo, lending to possible image anomalies. Another interesting thing is the layers of the strips were overlayed onto black. So that means the sky/space above the top mountain ranges at the top of the final image had to be masked out.

This has done nothing but confuse me more because when I looked at the high-res file that you provided, lo2_h162_32, it appears the strips are more natural looking, as if placed by hand and then photographed. In fact, it looks like you can even see fingerprints in the dark areas of the sky/space. So I assume this was a scan from contact paper.

What does all this mean? I don't have a clue other than it just lends to more questions.




posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by dcmb1409
reply to post by undo
 


Ant data to support your claims as you asked from others or do we just have to simply accept your claims and conjectures as fact since it appears that you think all responses are directed at you only and you respond constantly with biased opinions based on unproven belief.

Still waiting on your data. You asked me for data and got it, all I get is "well it might be this or that"


already said i'm not putting here because it will cause trouble.
just leave it at that.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Now, given the admission of confusion in my previous post, I'd like to offer the following image as a grain-of-salt discussion:

Again with the boneyard:



In the area labeled image A, it appears to me that there is a cylinder-type object, which looks similar to a propane tank. I say this because "the cylinder" appears sitting on another object giving a rise to the cylinder, enough to reveal shadowing along the side of the object. Also, at the very front of "the cylinder" there appears to be another shadow. There doesn't appear to be anything causing this shadow. Now if you take my theory of a cylinder-type tank, the angle it is sitting could cause a shadow to wrap around the nose of the cylinder.

In the area labeled image B, I mean, come on, what is that? Now, to let my mind wonder a bit, if there was activity on the moon at some point in our very distant past, could this really be some kind of a spacecraft boneyard? Could there have been a catastrophic event to cause a crash? Could you combine the image B which looks like an odd-looking fuselage with image C which somewhat resembles a cockpit?

Bottomline, though, I don't believe we will ever know the truth unless we get better photos to examine (see my previous post).



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
Just a question.

To the skeptics: are there satalite images of naturally occurring representations of faces and buildings here on earth that match these images?

To the moon freaks: are there satellite images of buildings and other man-made structures on earth that are not easily identified that give the appearance of "just rocks"?



How about a whole mountain



It's to easy to see faces thats the problem!!!
edit on 19-12-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Has anyone got that photo that shows an apparent 'aircraft hangar' on the moon? The half cylinder type shape? Its the one John Lear shows in his Tell's All video on youtube.

Thanks



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Keep in mind the following: Sometimes an object that appears to be an interesting anomaly requiring further research and discussion, really is an interesting anomaly requiring further research and discussion and NOT pareidolia. If everything Odd or out of the ordinary was dismissed as pareidolia...well, you get the picture. I'm not saying that I see anything in THESE pictures, but I've seen far too much interesting stuff here dismissed with an insulting tone. If a topic interests you, take a quick look and move on with a simple post about how and why you disagree. Where is civility? Probably the same place my grammer, spelling and punctuation went.
edit on 19-12-2011 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   


How about a whole mountain



It's to easy to see faces thats the problem!!!

Thats not what im looking for. I understand the examples but no one is saying those are sculptures and there is no one saying the equivalant is a sculpture on the moon. if someone showed a picture of a mountain viewed from ths surface of the moon and said it was a sculpture then that would work.

i want to see if you can take a satellite photo of the earth...say somewhere in the rockies... and find "artwork" similar to the OP.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
To the skeptics: are there satalite images of naturally occurring representations of faces and buildings here on earth that match these images?
Probably, although I think it's harder to find something like that on Earth because of the strong erosion we have, something that doesn't happen on the Moon.

But if you are asking this to those that do not see those things in the photos taken on the Moon, why would they see them on the Earth?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 

Something like this?


www.flyparamotor.com...

edit on 12/19/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by papajake
 


poor guy, the moon bug has bit ya. run while you still can lol i have huge folders of moon and mars images now, thanks to this ats place lol many hours of my life have been spent zooming in and out on pics of the moon, increasing the size, increasing constrast, brightness, gamma correction, clarifying them, fade correction, applying colorization to the black and white ones, cropping, cutting, sharp, unsharp, noise removal, jpg artifact removal, moire pattern removal, even splitting channels, oh my gosh, if i had been paid by the hour, i'd be out of debt.
edit on 19-12-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by undo
 


If you can tell the location of that area or the file where you got it from I can try to look at the CUB files, now that I have that possibility.


oh good grief! i'd have to do the slow painful process of zooming one
part at a time, for the entire far side.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   



But if you are asking this to those that do not see those things in the photos taken on the Moon, why would they see them on the Earth?


Fair question. For the "artwork" that we are all supposed to see on the moon, I will assume that everyone sort of sees something that looks like faces in some of the circled areas but they say that they don't "see" them because they see the rocks instead. If you stare long enough, you have that brain shift thingy...Gastalt. I believe this the prominent thing at work here even with UFO sightings.
en.wikipedia.org...

The folks that don't see them just don't stare long enough to shift because they feel it's rediculous that there are sculptures there to begin with.

Anyway, I'm thinking if you can find "artwork" in the same manner on an earth picture, then it's just the brain shift thingy....if not maybe there is something to this moon stuff.

maybe the skeptics will see things on the earth picture that the moonies can't.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 

Something like this?


www.flyparamotor.com...

edit on 12/19/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


YES!

Who built that? LOL!



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
YES!

Who built that? LOL!


And who built this one?!?


Pacific Coast Face



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 

Rain built it.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


longitude 173.73
latitude -29.18

there ya go.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by arianna
 



Is there a reason you are asking for the source of the artwork?


Because nobody here believes its actually artwork. You have just turned the original picture sideways in the hopes we'd be fooled into thinking there were faces in it. Sheesh!


I have no intention of fooling anyone, but you and ArMaP are quite correct about the picture. The imaage, lo2_h162_32-m, was rotated 90 degrees to the left and then resized to create the impression of a distant view. It is only when an image is viewed from a distance that certain surface features become apparent. Copernicus is a major area of lunar research and previous examination of the crater floor and the walls as well as the rim and ejecta area has revealed many interesting objects and other features suggesting that a very active life presence has been at work.

I firmly believe the artwork, which includes the figures and facial representations was sculpted into the landscape deliberately. The landscape was designed to create the impression, when viewing from a distance, of being a picture scene. Only an active and intelligent civilization would be capable of such a huge undertaking but similar shapes can also be observed at other lunar locations. According to the scientists no one has been on the moon except astronauts from Earth. If what the scientists tell us is true then we should not be able to observe any of these shapes in such clarity at all but only natural rocks and outcropping etc., As can be seen from viewing the image the shapes are definitely there and they are also there in large numbers.

This leads on to an interesting question. If the shapes were sculpted into the landscape deliberately how long ago did this landscaping take place? We also have to consider another valid possibility. The descendants of the civilization that were able to perform these sophisticated works of land and rock art may still be in residence on, or under, the lunar surface.
edit on 20-12-2011 by arianna because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-12-2011 by arianna because: text addition



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
WOW i really can't get over this looking at faces in rocks. There is absolutely NOTHING in these images. Don't get me wrong I think there is some evidence on the moon but this? Come on please..............

October



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
I firmly believe the artwork, which includes the figures and facial representations was sculpted into the landscape deliberately. The landscape was designed to create the impression, when viewing from a distance, of being a picture scene.
But in this case, it also means that "they" had to make it appear like that not only from a distance but also from this particular and angle to the surface.

Something like this:


so it would look like this:
when seen from a specific position.

So, if that's the case, those features would be very noticeable when seen from different angles (like from above), and that doesn't happen.

(Source)
edit on 20/12/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


oh armap, here's your coords for the blue tubes

longitude 173.73
latitude -29.18

there ya go.



new topics




 
9
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join