What's going on in Copernicus crater?

Originally posted by arianna
I do understand ArMaP but perhaps you would like to explain why the Viking images appear so natural and the images from the later missions appear to have been deliberately coloured back here to give the viewer a false impression of what it is really like on Mars.

That only happens with the radiometrically corrected images. Radiometric correction tries to compensate for differences in sensor sensitivity (that's why they also have information about the temperature of the sensor), lens construction, Sun angle, topography of the scene and atmospheric effects like absorption and scattering of the light.

I haven't found yet radiometrically corrected Viking photos.

In the past I have produced full-spectrum colour images of the martian landscape and the sky always had a blue colour.

So have I, as I said before, and the sky is usually blue or white. But if I do the same thing with the radiometrically corrected versions of the photos, then everything gets redder, and those are the photos they usually show.

I guess we will get more information about that soon, as soon as can get the new colour photos from Curiosity.

reply to post by arianna


You claim ambient light so if you are refering to low light levels what film speed would you consider using in that situation?

Also this image posted by eriktheawful is from approx 53km above the earth at a better res that YOUR apollo pic can you see any shadows?




If you answer these we can get on with your subject!!!!

reply to post by ArMaP



When I have time I will post a couple of Viking images that highlights the confusion that exists with reference to the colour of the images taken on Mars.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by arianna

 

You claim ambient light so if you are refering to low light levels what film speed would you consider using in that situation?

The 70mm film used for the Apollo 17 image #23185 was type SO-368 (QX807) Ektachrome which is a specially produced colour reversal film with a speed rating of ASA 64. You say you are in to photography so you would know what produces bright 'washed out' images when captured on colour reversal film. It's obvious that in this particular image not enough light was being reflected from the surface to reach the film. This is assuming that a linear processing procedure was used throughout to produce the final image.

Also this image posted by eriktheawful is from approx 53km above the earth at a better res that YOUR apollo pic can you see any shadows?

Of course, its logical that shadows will not be seen at over 50km, but the images I have posted are close-views of the surface and it is evident there are no shadows showing in the pits and craters or from any other objects for that matter. In fact, there would seem to be no shadow detail at all in the image. That's why I say ambient lighting was being reflected from the surface and not sunlight. If sunlight was striking the lunar surface the quality of the capture would have been much better than the image in question.

Originally posted by arianna

The 70mm film used for the Apollo 17 image #23185 was type SO-368 (QX807) Ektachrome which is a specially produced colour reversal film with a speed rating of ASA 64. You say you are in to photography so you would know what produces bright 'washed out' images when captured on colour reversal film. It's obvious that in this particular image not enough light was being reflected from the surface to reach the film. This is assuming that a linear processing procedure was used throughout to produce the final image.

Also this image posted by eriktheawful is from approx 53km above the earth at a better res that YOUR apollo pic can you see any shadows?

Of course, its logical that shadows will not be seen at over 50km, but the images I have posted are close-views of the surface and it is evident there are no shadows showing in the pits and craters or from any other objects for that matter. In fact, there would seem to be no shadow detail at all in the image. That's why I say ambient lighting was being reflected from the surface and not sunlight. If sunlight was striking the lunar surface the quality of the capture would have been much better than the image in question.

Histograms for anyone who doesn't know what they show have a look here.

Histogram


So lets have a look at histograms for the images in question first the Apollo image before YOU butchered it.
Scroll to see histogram



Well what do you know the histogram shows overexposed like I said

Not as you claimed

Now YOUR butchered version scroll to see histogram.



Well what do you know UNDEREXPOSED!!!!

For your claimed close up views how did you get them did you just enlarge the Apollo image?

Back to you!!!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
[For your claimed close up views how did you get them did you just enlarge the Apollo image?

No, I did not enlarge the Apollo image, it was already a large image to start with.

What's the problem?

Could it possibly be that you are unable to produce the really close views that I have posted?

For the darker view shown above the only adjustments made were to the contrast and brightness levels but for obtaining and maintaining the integrity the surface detail in the close views another process was used. The process did not involve the use of the 'burn' tool.

Anyway wmd_2008, why are we discussing image processing and technical details here? If you wish to discuss technical issues related to imaging why don't you start a new thread. This thread is about lunar exploration and to find out what is really on the surface of the moon.

Do you not see any of the structural forms in the close views I have provided?

As a finale and just to prove to the 'experts' on the forum that the Apollo images have a reasonable enough resolution to work with, here is an extremely close sectional view of the image shown on the previous page. I know many people will say this is not possible, but as can be observed it is possible with a lot of patience.

There is no doubt about it. Many structures are showing on the lunar surface which have definitely not been constructed by humans from this planet. Maybe this is the base of all the unidentified craft that people say they see. Also, David Icke may be correct in saying that the moon is one giant spacecraft.

So, if the moon is inhabited by a very large civilization, who are they and where did they come from?

Could it possibly be that they are related to our ancient ancestors?

What do you think?

Click on the Direct view for a larger version.





Direct view:

i985.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by arianna
There is no doubt about it. Many structures are showing on the lunar surface which have definitely not been constructed by humans from this planet.

Actually, there is a lot of doubt, your pictures show no structures at all, just rocks.

Maybe this is the base of all the unidentified craft that people say they see. Also, David Icke may be correct in saying that the moon is one giant spacecraft.

maybe it is where the invisible pink unicorns hide....

So, if the moon is inhabited by a very large civilization, who are they and where did they come from?

it is not, as the invisible pink unicorns ate them all. And there is as much evidence for invisible pink unicorns as there is to the structures you claim are there!

reply to post by spoor



Oh dear..... I think you need to visit an optician.

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008
[For your claimed close up views how did you get them did you just enlarge the Apollo image?

No, I did not enlarge the Apollo image, it was already a large image to start with.

What's the problem?

Could it possibly be that you are unable to produce the really close views that I have posted?

For the darker view shown above the only adjustments made were to the contrast and brightness levels but for obtaining and maintaining the integrity the surface detail in the close views another process was used. The process did not involve the use of the 'burn' tool.

Anyway wmd_2008, why are we discussing image processing and technical details here? If you wish to discuss technical issues related to imaging why don't you start a new thread. This thread is about lunar exploration and to find out what is really on the surface of the moon.

Do you not see any of the structural forms in the close views I have provided?

Are you trying hard to look dumb so YOU are claiming that a picture taken from from 57km above the surface of the Moon with an 80mm lens is large enough to make out the kind of surface detail you claim
just you are totally deluded.

Hi-Res

That Apollo picture you use is 2400x2400 pixels and shows an area of many thousands of square miles.

Anyway I think I have found your object on an LRO image will post the info later once I have labeled up the Apollo picture and LRO image common features which you,armap etc can compare then we will have a look at your so called tower in close up

Originally posted by wmd_2008

That Apollo picture you use is 2400x2400 pixels and shows an area of many thousands of square miles.

I think you'll find the surface area showing in the full image is a lot less than thousands of square miles - more like a value close to hundreds or even less.

Anyway I think I have found your object on an LRO image will post the info later once I have labeled up the Apollo picture and LRO image common features which you,armap etc can compare then we will have a look at your so called tower in close up

If you able to find the tower object at the exact location I look forward to viewing your image.

Incidentally, the bright dot that can be observed above the tower has no connection with it.

reply to post by arianna


As for the thousands of sq miles at a height of 57km what distance would the horizon on the moon be!!!

Below your butchered image of the Apollo picture, I have numbered some of the features so we can find them on the LRO site. The x is your tower.



I went to the LRO site here.

LRO

Using the menu opptions I brought up the lat/long grid and used the coordinates from the Apollo image 110E 10.5N which brings you to this area.



I have numbered the objects that corespond with your Apollo image above.
Now if we zoom in on the lower part.



As you can see your tower is a crater!!!
It is just outside one of the very high resolution LRO strips which you can see in you sellect the option on the LRO site above but at some point it will be photographed in really high res.
NOW can you please stop YOUR nonsense and if anybody need an optician it's YOU!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


The lunar research I am currently involved with is definitely not nonsense. The structural detail I am currently finding on the lunar surface is ground-breaking but I realise that there are some people who do not like the truth.

I am very sorry wmd_2008 but you will have to do a lot better than that if you wish to counter my claim. It's obvious the resolution is not sufficient in the current LROC images. I know you are trying to prove my visual deductions incorrect but I challenge anyone, especially people in the astro-science field, to produce evidence to the contrary. I know those who try will have a very hard job to show that the structural objects showing in the close-view images posted above are not built structures.

Notice how the detail showing in the close-views taken from the 70s imaging is far more superior than the current LROC 'top-down' images of that particular location.

reply to post by arianna

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I am very sorry wmd_2008 but you will have to do a lot better than that if you wish to counter my claim. It's obvious the resolution is not sufficient in the current LROC images.
Notice how the detail showing in the close-views taken from the 70s imaging is far more superior than the current LROC 'top-down' images of that particular location.

Well just to show everyone what an idiot you are being
Your butchered Apollo picture look at object 8



This is the LRO hi-res image of object 8 Not enough detail



Keep taking the tablets old yin!!!

There's a whole lot of craters, dust, dirt, rocks & more rocks on the surface of the moon. Not much else.

I am open to the possibility that something may be hidden from us there....as of yet, I've seen no evidence to support that claim though.

reply to post by wmd_2008



The dark context view is not "butchered" as you call it - but adjusted to show more of the surface detail which is far better than looking at a 'washed-out' original.

The 'top-down' image you have shown is absolutely useless to make an evaluation. For one thing these type of views they lack any form of perspective. The area you have chosen in my view has very high luminosity factor which I think is due to artificial lighting. The object shown in your view does not show such characteristics. This is probably due to the LROC capture being made in bright sunlight and swamping out what can be observed in my view.

Anyway, where's the tower anomaly evidence?

It's about time you faced some facts. There are built structures on the moon - probably millions of them and that means the moon is hosting a vast civilization. No wonder the Apollo 11 astronauts were 'warned off'. The structures are on the surface, so whoever constructed them did so, according to what we are being led to believe, in a vacuum. Do you really expect me to believe that?

Can anyone prove to me that the detail showing in the close-view images below are not structures?

First image is context view with yellow rectangle showing area of investigation.

Second image is the close view of surface detail contained within yellow rectangle.

Larger version of close view available at Direct view.








Direct view:

i985.photobucket.com...

reply to post by arianna

Originally posted by arianna
The dark context view is not "butchered" as you call it - but adjusted to show more of the surface detail which is far better than looking at a 'washed-out' original.

Sorry but it BUTCHERED the histogram shows it is see below (scroll picture)



Also the link again re histograms so people can see you are LYING through your teeth!!!

Histogram

Originally posted by arianna
The 'top-down' image you have shown is absolutely useless to make an evaluation. For one thing these type of views they lack any form of perspective. The area you have chosen in my view has very high luminosity factor which I think is due to artificial lighting. The object shown in your view does not show such characteristics. This is probably due to the LROC capture being made in bright sunlight and swamping out what can be observed in my view.

The Apollo shot was in sunlight the sun was at 77° in relation to the moons surface as shown to you before.

mage Collection: 70mm Hasselblad
Mission: 17
Magazine: 151
Magazine Letter: OO
Revolution: 3
Latitude / Longitude: 10.5° N / 110° E
Lens Focal Length: 80 mm
Camera Tilt: 56°
Camera Azimuth: 4
Camera Altitude: 57 km
Sun Elevation: 77°

Originally posted by arianna
It's about time you faced some facts. There are built structures on the moon - probably millions of them and that means the moon is hosting a vast civilization. No wonder the Apollo 11 astronauts were 'warned off'. The structures are on the surface, so whoever constructed them did so, according to what we are being led to believe, in a vacuum. Do you really expect me to believe that?

What exactly does that mean, the only structures are in the BUTCHERED images that your mind sees NO WHERE ELSE

reply to post by arianna


Your image with a Y & Z added


LRO hI-res showing Y & Z


Tiny craters and features showing in the LRO picture that cant be seen in detail on yours

wmd_2008, why don't you take a long walk...............

Your argument holds no weight. The original image has hot been "butchered" - but carefully adjusted. By the way, I think you like that particular word. Why don't you try and replace it with a word that is more relevant to image adjustment.

Do you refer to all things you don't agree with as being "butchered" as that's a very common way of describing something you think was maladjusted?

What's the point of trying to determine and show the detail on the lunar surface from a washed-out base image? I made the adjustments so that the detail on the surface could be determined. What's wrong with that? Could it possibly be that making adjustments counters your understanding of photographic imaging?

I think you should take a course in aerial recognition of surface objects as there's plenty of them showing in the close-up views posted. Apparently, it would appear that you are only seeing what you want to see and nothing else.