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: 37
9
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

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


In other words, "Can anyone prove that my fantastic claims, of which I have nothing in the way of actual evidence, is not true?" Nice logic. Fail.

Now I know that your claims of having experience in archeology are complete crap. No scientist or researcher worth their salt makes outrageous claims unless they have supporting evidence.....and then claims that the burden of disproving said claims lies on the observer. WHAT??? And no, your images are not evidence. What they show is interesting anomalies that can be interpreted or confused for other things if one squints their eyes, uses their imagination or enhances the images using photo editing software. What we have here is wishful thinking and a wild imagination. Zero evidence and laughable proof.

I am open minded...what I am not, is a religious fanatic who believes purely on faith. I would love to see actual evidence. I think it would make everyone's day here. Unfortunately, it ain't happenin' in this thread.




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Unidentified_Objective
 


Are you telling me that you do not see any structures in the close views? Well I never, the detail stands out and still it's not seen! What proof or evidence of structures are you expecting to see that would convince you?



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
all you debunker troll clowns


I'd expect better from a member as experienced as you.

The anger and childish name calling DO NOT help your case; but then you know that.

Two people can take opposite sides on an issue and both still be perfectly decent, rational people. Debate need not be reduced to that level. When either side resorts to that they loose whether right, wrong or in-between.

We all fall into that trap from time to time when emotion overrules rational thought.

We have way better photo's now and can even see the actual craft on the surface and features in much greater detail. I'm not sure the old stuff is all that relevant now and most certainly the images wrongly posted after overuse of interpolation are not helpful at all.

Many like me find this interesting as I did the first time around. We can find it interesting and want to participate in the discussion without being a "debunker", "troll" or "clown". Rational people can have differing opions and remain civil or even friendly as it's a sign of maturity is it not?



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna

What proof or evidence of structures are you expecting to see that would convince you?



Perhaps images showing evidence of actual structures...rather than indistinct artifacts and blurry images resembling very little....that are then shown to be the moon's normal geology when those same areas are examined in high resolution photos. So yeah....that.

BTW....I do not criticize the fact you are investing time into researching the possibility of structures....I just think you need to come forth when your evidence (If any is found) is much better.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
For the moment let's get back to the previous topic - the tower anomaly.

Shown below is close view of the tall object.





posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

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.

The problem is that you lost some data in the process. If you count the number of colours before and after and they are the same, then that means that you didn't lose any information while adjusting the image, but if it's not then you lost something.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

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

No, but you haven't proved that they are artificial structures either, just saying so is not enough.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

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

No, but you haven't proved that they are artificial structures either, just saying so is not enough.



No ArMaP I am not just saying the detail showing is artificial, I know the images are showing artificial objects by recognition experience . We all know how the brain interprets a building on earth so why should it not be able to interpret what is an artificial object or structure on the moon or Mars or anywhere else for that matter

During WW2 photographs were used to determine surface features. To make recognition of surface features better an eye magnifyer was used. The situation here is similar. I would ask members to view the following images with a strong magnifying glass. I think you may be quite surprised at what there is to view.









edit on 9-8-2012 by arianna because: text



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


The histograms show the Apollo picture you used was overexposed and after you did your magic
guess what the histgram shows its underexposed


Your white dot is a bright feature on the surface and what you think is a tower is a dark mark on a crater wall!!!!

This is the area I showed before so point out the structures !!



This image shows small craters and features yours doesn't so point out the structures.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


You have the patience of a saint!



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 



The problem is that you are insisting that there are artificial structures there, with your evidence being based upon old photographs that you have had to manipulate with software to try and show that something is there (with pretty much no one else being able to see what you claim you are seeing).

Yet, much newer, much more high resolution photographs of the exact same area are being shown, with a high enough resolution that if a car was parked there, it would be quite visible, no mater what direction the sun might be at, and none of them required the use of photoshopping software.........

I'm afraid that it has been proven that your structures that you seem to see are simply not there.

If there were no high resolution pictures from the LROC of that area, and if more people on here seemed to agree with you that something was there, then you might be on to something.

But so far, with this area, there are photos that are much better of that area, that show much, much, much more detail, with NO manipulation by any of us, and I've yet to see anyone agree with you that it looks like something artificial might be there where your "tower" is.

It does not mater how much of an "expert" you claim to be in this area (credentials might help), this is the internet and anyone can be anyone or anything they want. Your lone word that something is there is not enough.

So no one here has to "prove there are no structures there", as you have yet to prove that there are structures there.

edit on 9-8-2012 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
No ArMaP I am not just saying the detail showing is artificial, I know the images are showing artificial objects by recognition experience .

To that I ask only one thing: do you remember the test we did some months ago?


I would ask members to view the following images with a strong magnifying glass. I think you may be quite surprised at what there is to view.

What is there to view is pixels, there's a difference between looking at a real photo, where, with enough magnifying, you can see the individual (usually) silver crystals and a digital photo made of pixels, each pixel made made of three colour elements.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

What is there to view is pixels.....



I do not think you've had a look at the three images posted above wih a magnifying glass. If you had viewed them you would know that what you were observing on the lunar surface are structures and not pixels.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
I do not think you've had a look at the three images posted above wih a magnifying glass. If you had viewed them you would know that what you were observing on the lunar surface are structures and not pixels.


You must have a dirty magnifying glass, as there are no structures in the pictures you post

You seem to think en.wikipedia.org... was a documentary....
edit on 10-8-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
My eyes are hurting but I will admit this a lunar surface



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
This image shows small craters and features yours doesn't so point out the structures.


I have had a really good look at the image you posted and would show some structures but it's a bit of a job as there are so many of them.

I will post an image showing some of the major features later.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


I will address and answer you questions later when I have time.


You have had plenty of time to answer and reply to many other posts, so why are you avoiding my questions from the post you replied above to or my other previous posts above that?

No answers?
edit on 8/10/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna

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.

According to my calculations, based on the image below, the area closest to the camera (as the image goes up to the horizon the map doesn't have a defined back edge) is something like 30624 km / 11823 miles.

(The image shows measurements in km/miles)


Considering that the closest (bottom) edge is something like 58 km, that would give a best resolution of 58/2400=24 metres per pixel.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thank you ArMaP for posting the image and your calculation. That gives us a good idea of the resolution we can expect for the very close views.

Maybe I should clarify that what I was referring to is the area under investigation which is only a small part of the total surface area that is located in the lower part of the full image.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Here is a quote from you re LRO images important bit underlined and bold!!


Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

[b]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.


You seem to have changed your tune below but you still wont find any structures in the LRO image just dust, rocks and craters.


Originally posted by arianna
I have had a really good look at the image you posted and would show some structures but it's a bit of a job as there are so many of them.
I will post an image showing some of the major features later.


This thread is a real joke now







 
9
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join