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: 23
9
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 





Are you trying to make me look like a kook or something? If this is your game, it will not work.


Actually your posts accomplish that on their own.




posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 



I would be interested to know your qualifications and experience in relation to the images being discussed here.

What research have you done with reference to the images of the Moon and Mars?


I think his point is that he is raising the same questions of you.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by arianna
 





Are you trying to make me look like a kook or something? If this is your game, it will not work.


Actually your posts accomplish that on their own.


What I have posted in the thread is a very relevant.

It would appear that you and others do not see what I see in the images. This is very unfortunate, so in future I will endeavour to make the objects and features easier to recognize. With reference to the images from Mars, you will not see any martians but you may see some of their structures and other forms of large-scale handiwork.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   


What research have you done with reference to the images of the Moon and Mars?
reply to post by arianna
 


Probably as much if not more than you have but instead of corrupting data that "no one" can see structures on, I look at the originals from lunar archives, the mars sites, etc. and have only found natural formations and interesting panorama's..

You won't find me listed on any NASA site or institute as an advisory or as a fellow in good standing as I am sure you are not listed on any scientific sites either. If scientific study only requires the scanning of images and playing with saturation and sizing, then I guess you may call me a scientist as well.

The boulders and their trails website that was posted refutes an individual's claim of radio and water towers on the lunar surface and takes the most logical and scientific method to point out the boulders and their trails in images that is obvious to even the most untrained eye.

I am not making anyone look like a kook by posting their own words verbatim, unless........

edit on 6-1-2012 by dcmb1409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dcmb1409


What research have you done with reference to the images of the Moon and Mars?
reply to post by arianna




Probably as much if not more than you have but instead of corrupting data that "no one" can see structures on, I look at the originals from lunar archives, the mars sites, etc. and have only found natural formations and interesting panorama's..


I have been studying the images since they were made available. The only views we had previous to this were those captured using high magnification telescopes. I use the enhancement procedure as a tool to find out if there is anything that normally cannot be seen in an image, such as artificial objects.

You write as though the so-called 'corruption' of data (enhancement procedure) is breaking the rules. The enhancement process I use can be replicated by anyone who has Photoshop installed on their computer. There's nothing special about the process and somewhere on the forum is a reference to the settings used. There is nothing wrong with enhancing images. It does not change what we are being led to believe is an original. The lunar images are a typical example. The enhancement process, although more vigorously applied, has shown that there is 'hidden' detail embedded in certain images. It also shows that some people are being led to think that what they see in an original is true when sometimes the view is far from being what it appears. This brings into question the fidelity of the image processing procedures employed between the source and the end-user.


You won't find me listed on any NASA site or institute as an advisory or as a fellow in good standing as I am sure you are not listed on any scientific sites either. If scientific study only requires the scanning of images and playing with saturation and sizing, then I guess you may call me a scientist as well.


Who scans images? I obtain the original photographic material from official sources.


The boulders and their trails website that was posted refutes an individual's claim of radio and water towers on the lunar surface and takes the most logical and scientific method to point out the boulders and their trails in images that is obvious to even the most untrained eye.


I believe what you are referring to is the description which has been shown to be incorrect by what is the detail revealed in the enhanced images. Of course, this could just be the image processing staff didn't know what they were really looking at so they could have gone along with the following school of thought. Yes, that's what ithe view looks like so we''ll put that in the description...



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


I just have to ask.....I mucked up some videos I tried to link earlier. Found them again.

I'll start with just one: WHAT do you think about this person, the video he made, and his claims?:



As you see, this was uploaded to YouTube in 2008. "Comments Disabled" (how 'convenient'). And that one was only a portion of, according to his channel stats, 94 videos in all......not sure if they are each on this topic.

I have an opinion about this person, but will wait to hear yours first.


So, any thoughts? Comparisons?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


YOU are not enhancing you are BUTCHERING you lose information, all you are doing is exaggerating shadows and over enhancing contrast you may fool some on here but many on here seem to have a better undestanding of what you are doing to the pictures than YOU do.


Same BS on all your threads.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thunda
Wow, seems in some threads you can fill pages with totally off topic nonsense (I mean 'the simpsons' and 'the twighlight zone'? Please...), and in others, the thread gets shut down. Im sure this post will probably disppear too........

Makes me wonder if there is some reason behind rubbishing threads



I SUGGEST you have a good look at some thread titles on this site they make the above programs look like documentaries



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   


Who scans images? I obtain the original photographic material from official sources.


Perhaps a better term would have been "looking at" instead of scanning which can be easily misinterpreted, I see. My poor choice of a word there.

I know all about the early days before satellites and rovers, I was there. Also know a little bit of Topography from my days in the military and I've always been interested in space and images so a lecture on these matters is useless.

I do wish you would submit your "scientific" research to that lunar boulder site and let them examine your remarkable enhancement techniques.

I would even pay to read the results even though its a free site.

Are you game for a professional analysis?
edit on 6-1-2012 by dcmb1409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
There is nothing wrong with enhancing images. It does not change what we are being led to believe is an original. The lunar images are a typical example. The enhancement process, although more vigorously applied, has shown that there is 'hidden' detail embedded in certain images.
No, there's nothing wrong with enhancing the images, the problem is that what you are doing is not an enhancement, as it makes things look worse. If you applied your process to make lighter areas more visible, then you would be making enhancements on those areas, but you are making all other areas worse.

And there's no way any process can show some "hidden detail embedded in certain images", and only people that do not know how images like JPEG or PNG work.


I believe what you are referring to is the description which has been shown to be incorrect by what is the detail revealed in the enhanced images.
No, the description has not been shown to be incorrect, say the truth, please: you don't believe in the description, but you haven't shown a thing about it, you have just talked about it.


Of course, this could just be the image processing staff didn't know what they were really looking at so they could have gone along with the following school of thought. Yes, that's what ithe view looks like so we''ll put that in the description...
This is what I like the least about you, the way you say things as if you are the only right person in the World and everybody else is wrong. You being wrong? Impossible, it was the people that really know how to work with the images that are wrong.

PS: remember the test and be a little more humble about your own opinions, it will only do you good, both to the way you interact with other people and in your own research.

PPS: sorry for giving my opinion about you and not the subject, but I think your personality is interfering with your research.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   
OK, you all win.

My time and your time is valuable.

I have posted images in this thread which I believe had some scientific credibility but at nearly every turn my analysis is rejected as well as being accused of 'butchering' the images. The amount of enhancement I have applied to some of the images was deliberate. Therefore, if some of you believe the amount of enhancement I have applied to be 'butchering' that's your perogative. So, as you all seem to be imaging experts you tell me, how else can any embedded information hidden in an image be determined? The images submitted by other members are not what I call real high-level enhancements because if any of you had used the same enhancement method I had employed you would have realized that the new detail showing up after the enhancement was genuine.

The test ArMaP set was interesting. I accepted the test in good faith but it just goes to show how even a dedicated researcher can be mislead, just like some of you are being mislead about what appears to be boulders and boulder trails when I have visually proved them to be not what they appear. As I have said before facial representations can be seen in nature and on many other surfaces other than in the pictures from the Moon and Mars. The secret is knowing what is real or what appears to be real. Determinig the difference is not easy as the ArMaP test has proved.

So, if it makes you all feel happier, I freely admit that my analysis and interpretation of the images has been totally misguided and I apologise for wasting everybody's time...... unless someone out there in cyberspace with imaging expertize can verify what I have posted because I am sure that no scientist would dare to tread this path.

It's a shame that things have developed as they have. I was just on the verge of presenting some images which have not been enhanced that show structures on a martian rock that could only have been constructed by tiny-sized life-forms. A true 3-D close-up image has also been produced which shows the same.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
As a supplementary to the above post the image posted below may interest you.

Is there any evidence available to support the theory that tiny-sized martians really do exist?

The image is lg_7751 from the Phoenix mission which can be easily verified.




Direct view. i985.photobucket.com...



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 



The image is lg_7751 from the Phoenix mission which can be easily verified.


Arianna, please tell me you are pulling our legs. What I am about to say, I say in all earnestness. I am not trying to be mean or ridicule you. What I am about to say I say out of compassion. If you genuinely believe you see a tiny city in a scoop full of dirt, you require professional attention. If you do not believe in modern western psychology, seek out a counselor from a tradition that you have faith in. (Just not a channeler or ET abductee counselor, please.) A priest, a rabbi, an imam, even a Wiccan priestess or professional astrologer will help you to understand why you need to re-evaluate the way you look at the world and communicate with it.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by arianna
 



The image is lg_7751 from the Phoenix mission which can be easily verified.


Arianna, please tell me you are pulling our legs. What I am about to say, I say in all earnestness. I am not trying to be mean or ridicule you. What I am about to say I say out of compassion. If you genuinely believe you see a tiny city in a scoop full of dirt, you require professional attention. If you do not believe in modern western psychology, seek out a counselor from a tradition that you have faith in. (Just not a channeler or ET abductee counselor, please.) A priest, a rabbi, an imam, even a Wiccan priestess or professional astrologer will help you to understand why you need to re-evaluate the way you look at the world and communicate with it.


No DJW001, I am not pulling anyone's legs and do not require any form of counseling

I haven't said what I see on the plate but I can assure you it definitely isn't dirt. I am leaving that for viewers to ponder over. NASA has stated the material on the plate is a "rosy red soil sample". They have to be joking.
edit on 7-1-2012 by arianna because: text



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


The person who made the video is way off track.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
OK, you all win.
This isn't a two sided contest, the only option is that we all win, you included.


My time and your time is valuable.
Yes, but, I think that knowledge is also highly valuable, that's why I don't mind (and even like) to spend some of my free time trying to spread the knowledge I have gathered (or so I see it) during my life.


I have posted images in this thread which I believe had some scientific credibility but at nearly every turn my analysis is rejected as well as being accused of 'butchering' the images.
One of the reasons behind the problem is the way you determined that scientific credibility. Just thinking that something has some scientific credibility doesn't make it so, you should always test your own tools and thought processes to see if you are making any mistake that will make the end result, at least, unreliable.


The amount of enhancement I have applied to some of the images was deliberate. Therefore, if some of you believe the amount of enhancement I have applied to be 'butchering' that's your perogative.
As I said before, the problems I see with the way you used the enhancements is that you should not use a method that increases contrast (reducing the number of shades of grey on the image) and then look for areas of the image that had some of the original data destroyed by that increase in contrast. Sure, an increase in contrast can show some areas better, but it will destroy the areas that are in the opposite point, contrast wise.


So, as you all seem to be imaging experts you tell me, how else can any embedded information hidden in an image be determined?
I'm not really an image expert, but I am used to work with images, both as a end user and as a programmer, working with the direct image data or specific file formats, and I have seen several people talk about some kind of "embedded information", but not one of those had a real knowledge of how things work. For example, in a common file format like JPEG there isn't any way of having embedded information, unless you use something like steganography. Image data is always image data, and is never hidden.


The images submitted by other members are not what I call real high-level enhancements because if any of you had used the same enhancement method I had employed you would have realized that the new detail showing up after the enhancement was genuine.
They weren't like your "high-level enhancements" because we tried not to destroy any data from the photos. As I said before, if you are looking at getting a better image in the brighter areas, any enhancement you do can only really be useful for the brighter areas, as the darker areas are badly affected by a process that is meant to show brighter areas.


The test ArMaP set was interesting. I accepted the test in good faith but it just goes to show how even a dedicated researcher can be mislead, just like some of you are being mislead about what appears to be boulders and boulder trails when I have visually proved them to be not what they appear.
I'm glad you find it interesting.

But then you go on saying that we are being mislead about the boulders and boulder trails, as if you have the original in front of you like I had with my test and so can be the only one knowing the truth. Don't you think you may be also wrong in that case? What makes you think that, in that case, you cannot be mistaken?


Determinig the difference is not easy as the ArMaP test has proved.
No, it's not easy, and that's why I try to avoid stating things like I was certain of the truth is. The truth is nobody can be 100% sure of anything, even if we were on the Moon.


So, if it makes you all feel happier, I freely admit that my analysis and interpretation of the images has been totally misguided and I apologise for wasting everybody's time...... unless someone out there in cyberspace with imaging expertize can verify what I have posted because I am sure that no scientist would dare to tread this path.
No, it doesn't make me feel happier, but if you are honestly admitting that you were following the wrong path and will start looking at other ways to find out the truth, then I will be happier.


It's a shame that things have developed as they have. I was just on the verge of presenting some images which have not been enhanced that show structures on a martian rock that could only have been constructed by tiny-sized life-forms. A true 3-D close-up image has also been produced which shows the same.
Why don't you show them? If most people were against your image processing (as I am, at least when used as you are using), if you post unaltered images then nobody can use that against your interpretation, and, as far as interpretations go, anyone is free to make their own.

But I suggest a new thread.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
During the era of the Phoenix mission I produced a false color image of what is on the small plate.

Does what can be observed on the plate look like a 'rosy red soil sample' to you or is it something else?

Have a look and see what you think. Use the direct view to examine the full image.




Direct view. i985.photobucket.com...



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I used to do this when I was drawing or painting. It was an exercise I read about in an art book.

- Take a big stiff brush and dip it in black ink.
- Dry it of with some tissue paper
- Now just make random movements on a paper, you'l' get some interestng contrasts.
- Now examin the paper and look for faces
- make more and now look for animals, landscapes or buildings.

This is a true exercise and you'll be amazed what you can see. Even if you are a 'believer' you should try this, so you'll be aware of it when you're mind is playing tricks on you



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 



Have a look and see what you think. Use the direct view to examine the full image.


Clumps of soil on a metal scoop.

But if you squint, then I can try to convince you that they vaguely resemble horned toads and bullfrogs.

Of course, someone else can squint, and then see any other imaginative shape that they wish.......

Let me ask the OP: Just peruse this next image, and explain what you see in it......and imagine I told you it was a photo taken on another planet, not on Earth (it isn't of course) but just imagine it was taken from another planet. Maybe an Earth-like planet in another star system, hundreds of light years away?







posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


The super intelligent grass seen in the picture has built all those structures you see in the picture but they are clever so they have made the structures look like rocks, stones & soil etc so we wont know they are super intelligent anyone can see that ProudBird

edit on 7-1-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join