Two triangular objects in two different Lunar Orbiter images, inside Tycho Crater., page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 04:28 PM by ArMaP

Originally posted by Arken
My approach to this issue is serious. Absolutely serious.

Then you should have some previous information about the target of the photo (the Moon), about the way the photo was made (chemical process, fully processed on board) and how the copies were made. As in this case the photos were physical objects and not digital, they had to be scanned, so you should also try to get the most information you can about the scanning processes and their problems.

If you don't have it then you are going to have many doubts about things that are easily explained.

Also, if you are serious about this, don't react as if everybody that gives you an answer that you don't like is attacking you.

We all enter this world as fully ignorant about everything, but we can learn from our mistakes and from examples we see during our lives, so if you are serious about this, act as such, please.

PS: the "objects" have all the signs of being a problem with the original photos. Anyone that has done dark room work can tell you that (I haven't).

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 05:08 PM by Arken

reply to post by ArMaP

What is wrong in my posts?

I detect TWO similar Anomalies on TWO different images from Lunar Orbiter.

What is wrong in my behaviour, ARMAP?

What is NOW ATS?

This isn't no more a place where confront different opinions?

Or this is the place of the PROFESSIONAL DEBUNKERS?

PS: The "anomalies" preexist at the print.

edit on 12-1-2012 by Arken because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 05:38 PM by ArMaP

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by Arken
What is wrong in my posts?

Posts like this:

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by gortex

Thanks for your opinion and your fantasy.

do not help the discussion in any way, and you lost a great opportunity to show that the lines are from the way the photo was made, as you preferred to make a sarcastic (or whatever that is called) answer instead of a serious one.

I detect TWO similar Anomalies on TWO different images from Lunar Orbiter.

No problems with that.

What is wrong in my behaviour, ARMAP?

It doesn't look like the behaviour of someone that is serious about what he is posting.

You asked " A coincidence glitch? Or a real object detected in two different lo5-126-h2b and lo5-126-h2c images?", but when Phage pointed you to a site that talks about how the photos were made and how those problems are specific from the Lunar Orbiter photos, you reacted as a child that got its toy taken away, instead of reacting as an adult serious about the subject.

Just because people have a different opinion doesn't mean that they are wrong, so why don't you ask for more details about the reasons posted by those that answered your question? Aren't you serious about this subject?

This isn't no more a place where confront different opinions?

As far as I see it, it's still a (very good) place to discuss any subject and present our opinions, but if you ask questions and refuse to listen to the answers, how can we have a serious discussion about it?

Or this is the place of the PROFESSIONAL DEBUNKERS?

As far as I know, it's not a place for professional debunkers, but I don't see it either as a place for people that act as profession debunkers of other people's answers to their questions.

PS: The "anomalies" preexist at the print.

Yes, because of the way the film was developed, look here.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 06:26 PM by Pimander

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
The Lunar Orbiter imaging system used 70mm film that was processed inside the probe, scanned, and transmitted back to Earth. I would say that most of these issues are film damage or data drop outs.

That was my first thought - it looks like film damage.

Originally posted by Phage
Google Moon/Mars are useful toys but should not be used for "research" because of the extensive image manipulation done by Google to make the images "fit". It is better to go to the source images.

Good advice this, Arken.

Try the Apollo Archives if you're looking for anomalies.

Sorry, you know I can't help it.

If you're looking for UFO type material look at the NARCAP UAP records. A lot of deniers hate that material.

The answers to the questions regarding the existence, source and nature of the subcategory of UAP referred to as UFO will be found in the data. Given that pilots do report aerial phenomena that they describe as structured objects, NARCAP feels it is appropriate to give attention to the witness' description of what was seen or detected and engage it objectively.
www.narcap.org...

Originally posted by watchdog8110
It isn't a contest for the most posts and the speed at which they are posted or is it ?

It isn't a contest for most stars and flag either. Quality posts are not always the ones that get the most stars.

Originally posted by draknoir2
If you don't want answers don't ask questions.

I want answers. I know I won't agree with or like them all but intend to learn from them.

edit on 12/1/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 06:34 PM by Aliensun

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by Phage

I don't know what you mean about "very dirty" offices. What Moon films?

I mean this.
Another interesting "Transient Lunar Phenomenon" anomaly inside Tycho Crater, that in your opinion is a "LINT".

Transient Lunar Phenomenon from Lunar Orbiter 5 in Tycho

Originally posted by Phage
The images are scanned from photographic prints.
Sure looks like lint on the scanner to me.

The Lunar Orbiter 16 x 20 inch prints from the LPI collection were scanned using a sheet-feeder scanner to create an archival digital file. Each print was digitized as an 8-bit grayscale image at 300 dpi, producing a file of approximately 29 MB in TIFF format.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Would you want to believe that is a piece of somebody's sweater that got caught in the gizmo?

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 08:48 PM by LittleBit111

reply to post by PollyPeptide

HAHA! Great minds think alike! I really think that this looks so much like a pick that it look odd in the photo because its so out of place.

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 08:52 PM by LittleBit111

reply to post by StealthyKat

Is it stupid to wonder if somehow a pick got in the way, or was put there on purpose? It just looks sooooo much like a pick!

reply posted on 13-1-2012 @ 03:34 AM by Arken

reply to post by Pimander

Thanks for your link,Pimander . Very interesting

reply posted on 13-1-2012 @ 07:47 AM by ArMaP

I showed the photos to my sister, a professional photographer, and she said that it looks like something touched the negative during development and removed part of the emulsion (the gelatine like material that is sensitive to the light), because when that happens the photo turns completely blank in that area but it shows a border with a slightly different colour, the edge of the light-sensitive emulsion.

reply posted on 13-1-2012 @ 07:57 AM by 3danimator

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by Phage

Nothing to see here, move along!

The Lunar Orbiter images contain many flaws.

The Google Moon/Mars images contain many glitch.

The LROC images are only 3d processed images. They are no real images.

The MRO have a very lower resolution.

The NASA offices, where processed the Moon films are very dirty.

Above Top Secret.com do not exist. It is only a virtual reality.

What a sad life!!

I don't understand. There is a perfectly good explanation for the anomalies. Even if it wasn't a perfectly good explanation (which it is), then what? That automatically means it's an alien triangular craft?
That's a pretty big jump.

"Hmmm....i cant explain this right now, therefore its an alien craft. Never mind that i didnt bother to look at ALL the information available to me. I cant explain this RIGHT THIS SECOND, therefore its alien in nature"

Can you really not see how flawed your thinking is?

I mean, i understand you want it to be true, so do i. I desperately want aliens to be visiting us etc... but this isn't anything other than a photographic glitch. Its clearly is.

reply posted on 13-1-2012 @ 08:00 PM by paperface

Strange how its only ever Nasa pictures that have "hairs" and scratches on them.

Debunking is complete fear of admiting something is up and the thousands of witnesses you hear from are all telling the truth.

When posters such as Phage and others appear instantly in a thread,its conformation that something is being hidden.

reply posted on 13-1-2012 @ 08:10 PM by NuminousCosmos

reply to post by paperface

No, it's a confirmation of the human need to use our specific knowledge to answer questions.

If you were knowledgeable about car engines and someone started a thread claiming to have discovered "car goblins" in his radiator, you would want to use your knowledge to give an alternative answer.

You would then be mighty upset if your answer was considered propaganda from AAA used to convince people that radiator goblins aren't real.

reply posted on 13-1-2012 @ 08:45 PM by 3danimator

Originally posted by paperface
Debunking is complete fear of admiting something is up and the thousands of witnesses you hear from are all telling the truth.

Not quite. Debunking is what EVERYBODY should try to do straight away in order to get to the truth. If one jumps to the final, incredible, unprovable result from the get go, then there is no basis for truth there. Skeptisism is not only healthy, its NECESSARY when discussing incredible events like aliens visiting us.

If the theory that what is being witnessed still stands after ALL other, more realistic options are ruled out, then what is left is a very probable, amazing, incredible event.

No one person can witness every weather anomaly, every light anomaly, every trick of the eye etc... So saying (for example), "I have never seen a plane/cloud/balloon/whatever do that before" is not a good enough reason to jump to the incredible conclusion.

Take a look at this vid:

YouTube Link

. I have never in 36 years of my life seen anything like this till now. Its amazing, But it can be explained. Its incredible and you could easily believe its something else..but no, it can be explained by simple physics and meteorology. Get my point?

If you are more skeptical, and try to explain things first, people will not think you are odd. They will respect you for trying to narrow down the possibilities.

ANyway, its 3am, i should go to bed