What's going on in Copernicus crater?

Originally posted by arianna
If I can find a high resolution overhead view I will demonstrate that some of the features can be observed from above.

Maybe this will help.

It's a large (15,686 x 14,987 pixels, 275 MB) image made with four photos from Kaguya, with a resolution of 7.43 metres per pixel.

Below you can see a smaller version, resized to 10%.


PS: It's the first time I use that site, so if there are any problems just tell me.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by arianna

 

Do you see any large statues?

NO. There are none.

It is a "top-down" view, is it not??

No, it's not a 'top-down' view but an oblique view.

Take a look at the lighter image posted. There are some really large statues which would appear to be either complete figures or facial representations. No trick of light here, only what the camera has captured.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Maybe this will help.

It's a large (15,686 x 14,987 pixels, 275 MB) image made with four photos from Kaguya, with a resolution of 7.43 metres per pixel.

Thanks for the large pic of Copernicus. Do you know of any other large high resolution pics like that of the moon?

Originally posted by zorgon

Copernicus #5

Can someone give me a quick tutorial or tips on how to highlight aspects of an image like done in these pics? I use GIMP software (although I don't really know how to use it well...).

reply to post by ArMaP


ArMaP, Many thanks for the link to the large png file.

I have downloaded the png and converted it to a jpeg in order to try a slight enhancement on a section and the procedure was successful. I will use a section of the png image for posting the results later. When looking at the original png there are not many clues as to what is really there. It is only when the enhancement procedure is carefully applied that many of the features start to show.

All I have to do now is get the orientation in the same direction as the original view that was used to circle the representations. The problem with this is that there is not much to go by only the outcropping on the crater floor.

reply to post by undo


I couldn't find a higher resolution version of that image (although I think it may exist), but at least I can show how the image looks when we choose different channels for different colours.

Originally posted by arianna
No, it's not a 'top-down' view but an oblique view.

What's your definition of oblique view?

Would you consider a 0.31º angle with the vertical an oblique view?

Because that's the angle on some Clementine photos from that area, as Clementine was a mapping mission, so the photos were taken as close to the vertical as possible.

reply to post by ArMaP


Do you have the link to the reference sheet for the image in question?

reply to post by arianna


That information is inside the image file (the IMG or equivalent files), and now that you ask for it I noticed that I used the wrong image, the one I looked at was from the "blue tube" posted by undo.

I will look for an image from that area.

Originally posted by arianna
ArMaP, Many thanks for the link to the large png file.

I have downloaded the png and converted it to a jpeg in order to try a slight enhancement on a section and the procedure was successful.

Why did you destroyed a perfectly good PNG that I had to made from four different images and turn it into a JPEG? If the problem is in the file size, converting it should be the last thing you do to the image, as working with JPEG artefacts is just a waste of time.

All I have to do now is get the orientation in the same direction as the original view that was used to circle the representations. The problem with this is that there is not much to go by only the outcropping on the crater floor.

The orientation is the same, north at the top of the image.
Anyone used to look at photos from the Moon or Mars shouldn't have any problem finding that.

reply to post by ArMaP


thanks armap! i starred ya for the effort.
have a good holiday

reply to post by ArMaP


ArMaP, I have your png file on the computer which remains untouched. As I said earlier, I made a hi-res jpeg from it to use as a test run and just to see what a degree of enhancement would produce. I never make adjustments or perform any processing to the original images. I always make a copy first.

The test was successful and there are many representations and other surface features. I will post some sections of the full image later. This particular study of exactly what is in Copernicus is becoming a very fruitful experience although a couple of years ago I did some research of the same location.

I was referring to the viewing direction of the earlier image with reference to the orientation of your png.

reply to post by undo


Now I will look for a Kaguya/Selene photo of that area, to clear some doubts I have about it.

Happy holidays.

Originally posted by arianna
As I said earlier, I made a hi-res jpeg from it to use as a test run and just to see what a degree of enhancement would produce.

But why use a JPEG?

I was referring to the viewing direction of the earlier image with reference to the orientation of your png.

So was I. The Lunar Orbiter photo looks like it was taken from the south, looking north across the crater, the Kaguya/Selene image I posted is orientated with north at the top, so both photos have north at the top and south at the bottom, the biggest difference is the perspective.

This should interest many and slience those that are skeptical.








Direct views in same order.

i985.photobucket.com...
i985.photobucket.com...
i985.photobucket.com...

Happy festival everyone.

reply to post by arianna

This should interest many and slience those that are skeptical.

*sigh* Happy Holidays, Arianna!

reply to post by arianna

and slience those that are skeptical.

How?

What do photos of more rocks prove?

Originally posted by arianna
This should interest many and slience those that are skeptical.

I doubt it.

You keep on posting images in which most people see nothing, you don't provide any help to those that do not see the things you see, you just dump manipulated images after manipulated images without any explanation or hint about what you see, why do you think things are like you think they are, etc.

You don't use higher resolution images (it took me less than 5 minutes to find an image that's almost 10 times bigger than the one you posted, here), you change the contrast to make them look like bad photocopies, with too much contrast, and then, when people point out the problems with the images you posted you pick another image and start all over again.

Why don't you stop, make things in a more scientific manner (for someone that is always taking about scientific studies you act in a very strange way) and provide to all people reading these threads with all the information they need? For example, what do you see on the image you posted? In what do you support that idea? Any other, related information that you can provide about it, etc.

PS: a sceptic isn't silenced when someone shows more of the same, unless he/she gets so bored as he/she falls asleep. A sceptic is always wanting new information to see if his/her ideas change because of that, sceptics are not fixed in any specific idea, they just want to understand how things are.

PPS: happy holidays.

reply to post by arianna


Huhhhhh how? I see ground, rocks.

No offence but please go and get your eyes checked.

The image below shows "the boneyard" as seen in the Lunar Orbiter photo (resized to match the Kaguya/Selene photo) and as seen in the Kaguya/Selene photo, with some white lines joining features on both photos that I think show the same thing, so we now have a top-down view and a oblique view of that area.



The next image shows "the crane" as seen on the Kaguya/Selene image.


Still no answer from zorgon...