What's going on in Copernicus crater?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 





Take note of the towers showing in the lower foreground.




I see no towers.

If you wear glasses, maybe they are dirty.




posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Those are not "towers":


Take note of the towers showing in the lower foreground.


They are flaws in the image. Many of those photos, depending on the satellite that took them, have similar vertical marks on the photo. This is well-documented, and those who are familiar with the technology are well aware of this. I am quite certain that it has been discussed at great length, and posted in multiple ATS threads.

IIRC, it is due to the movement of the photographic paper, as it is scanned onboard the spacecraft. Resulting in the transmission of the flaws to the receiving stations on Earth.

That is what I remember reading, and others can confirm this, perhaps with more technical jargon and specific language to describe it.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


I suggest you use the images on the thread pointed out by zorgon, those images are much better than the copy you are using.

As for what the photos may show, I already answered that in that same thread.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by arianna
 


I suggest you use the images on the thread pointed out by zorgon, those images are much better than the copy you are using.

As for what the photos may show, I already answered that in that same thread.


ArMaP, Interesting that you should point that out.

That's where the image came from in the first place.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Sorry, I didn't recognised it, the one you posted looks like a bad photocopy of the original posted on that older thread.

Also, why did you convert the image from a lossless GIF to a lossy JPEG? It doesn't make any sense.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Here we go again arianna how are they going to hide the shadows in this one then, you don't need your fake 3d version just a nice clear picture!



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by arianna
 


Sorry, I didn't recognised it, the one you posted looks like a bad photocopy of the original posted on that older thread.

Also, why did you convert the image from a lossless GIF to a lossy JPEG? It doesn't make any sense.


The images are hi-res jpegs. If you want to see them as gif's I will see what I can do when time allows.

Here is an animation of the close view but don't be surprised if you see some facial representations.



Direct view of animation. i985.photobucket.com...



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by arianna
 


Here we go again arianna how are they going to hide the shadows in this one then, you don't need your fake 3d version just a nice clear picture!


As can be seen in the animation the objects and other features are more important than chasing shadows.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by arianna
 


Here we go again arianna how are they going to hide the shadows in this one then, you don't need your fake 3d version just a nice clear picture!


As can be seen in the animation the objects and other features are more important than chasing shadows.


I still see the rocky moon. Where again are these supposed "towers"?

You don't mean those thin white vertical lines on the photo, do you?



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


You made an animated GIF.

Fabulous.

NOW....please show similar Earth-views, at SIMILAR resolutions, so we can ALL see how "structures" appear, and how signs of "artificial" structures" also appear.

Thanks, in advance.....



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
These threads crack me up. If someone were to present photos of the earth's surface from a similar distance as these pics that were taken of the moon's surface, it seems to me there would be little doubt whether there were "structures" visible on the earth's surface. So why is it we find ourselves dissecting pics of the moon and having so much difficulty trying to decide if something is a friggin' rock or a building? It's the MOON for God's sake, it's a hop skip and a jump across space! It's not like it's PLUTO! If there are buildings of any sort on the moon, it's hard for me to believe we could haven't captured a clear photograph of such a thing in the year 2011!

edit on 14-12-2011 by NightGypsy because: (no reason given)



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

Originally posted by NightGypsy
So why is it we find ourselves dissecting pics of the moon and having so much difficulty trying to decide if something is a friggin' rock or a building?


I guess the idea is that these things are very old and have been damaged so much by constant meteorite impact over the last billion years or so that they're practically unrecognizable. How something like a tower managed to survive that long is anybody's guess. Maybe they're not a billion years old. Maybe only a few thousand. Also maybe force fields (why not?).

I'm just hoping somebody (I don't know who that could be) can help pinpoint some of these features by drawing ellipses on every square centimeter of the images.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy
These threads crack me up. If someone were to present photos of the earth's surface from a similar distance as these pics that were taken of the moon's surface, it seems to me there would be little doubt whether there were "structures" visible on the earth's surface. So why is it we find ourselves dissecting pics of the moon and having so much difficulty trying to decide if something is a friggin' rock or a building? It's the MOON for God's sake, it's a hop skip and a jump across space! It's not like it's PLUTO! If there are buildings of any sort on the moon, it's hard for me to believe we could haven't captured a clear photograph of such a thing in the year 2011!

edit on 14-12-2011 by NightGypsy because: (no reason given)


Unless what is really there is being kept from us.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by arianna
 



Here we go again arianna how are they going to hide the shadows in this one then, you don't need your fake 3d version just a nice clear picture!


As can be seen in the animation the objects and other features are more important than chasing shadows.


Well since you claim buildings are there we should be able to chase their shadows shouldn't we!!! Have you booked the eye test and refresher course on photoshop yet?
edit on 14-12-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 




Thanks for the humor.
It was nice to have a laugh.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Arianna, are you serious? No-one seems to be able to see anything unusual in this photo but you. All I see is the usual jumble of lunar debris. At least Zorgon posts pictures that show some sort of definite, identifiable shape that we can all agree on, then we can argue over whether it's just an ordinary boulder or a robot head. Could you at least describe what you think you see, or perhaps make a sketch that will help us understand what we're supposed to be looking at?



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by NightGypsy
 




Thanks for the humor.
It was nice to have a laugh.


LOL....At least you caught it before it went to Internet heaven.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I think the OP might be talking about this odd looking thing, which I've indicated in red. This was discussed on John's thread and called "The Crane" if I remember correctly. It's interesting that this thing is casting a shadow to its left.



Edit to add: The shadow cast to the left gives this thing the "appearance" that it's a self-standing structure.
edit on 14-12-2011 by papajake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
The images are hi-res jpegs. If you want to see them as gif's I will see what I can do when time allows.
I don't really want to see them, as I already know them, I only think that turning a perfectly good image into a format that has known problems is not the best way of analysing any image.


Here is an animation of the close view but don't be surprised if you see some facial representations.
I wouldn't be surprised, that's the way our brains work.

PS: why do you have that "obsession" with JPEGs? They are better at reducing file size on colour photos by losing some data, but if a GIF or PNG file size is something workable, it's better to use them. You could also work with lossless TIFF files, but they are not "Internet friendly".





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join