More stuff on the moon.

reply to post by Zarniwoop

When you are analyzing images, you should work only with what is provided in the original image, not an algorithm that produces what the image might look like at a better resolution.

If you say so but it's a two way street and I don't forget statements like that very often.

I think we should use whatever technology we have available. Are you afraid something may be revealed that you don't want to accept?

reply to post by cavalryscout

If you say so but it's a two way street and I don't forget statements like that very often.

Not sure what you mean by that

I think we should use whatever technology we have available.

I agree. If he said "here is a digitally-enhanced zoom of the original image", I would accept that as a form of analysis to show what an anomaly might look like with better resolution.

Are you afraid something may be revealed that you don't want to accept?

Not at all. I used to spend a lot of time looking for lunar anomalies myself.

I would love to see some great evidence of lunar artifacts. This one does not fall into that category.

reply to post by Zarniwoop


All I meant is if you're going to argue the use of image enhancing software then you can't us it either.
Sometimes it really helps and I don't think it alters the original image if used correctly.

I stated earlier if this guy is known to falsify evidence then please lets trash it because I'm looking for the real stuff.

reply to post by cavalryscout

All I meant is if you're going to argue the use of image enhancing software then you can't us it either.

I'm not arguing the use of the zoom enhancement, but rather pointing out that it was indeed used in this example and that it is not an accurate representation of what is found on the LROC image. Using the modification with that caveat is perfectly fine.

I stated earlier if this guy is known to falsify evidence then please lets trash it because I'm looking for the real stuff.

I don't think use software to enhance an image is considered 'hoaxing'.

I am also looking for the real stuff. I never stated this was a hoax, nor to I think it is. In fact, I suggested that the guy possibly didn't even know he was modifying the image. I recall the old Windows Picture and Fax Viewer did the smoothing modification automatically when zooming in on something. Maybe he was using that.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
im going to give this video a 1 out of a possible 5 for one simple reason...NO MUSIC. There is no dramatic captions or anything.

I also require music. Perhaps some nice light jazz.

What was the song that Michael Jackson did the moonwalk to? I think would spice things up quite nicely.

reply to post by Zarniwoop


Okay fair enough.

In my opinion it is unusual. It could be a natural rock formation or it could be something else.
With the evidence available to us I don't think you can say for sure.

reply to post by cavalryscout

With the evidence available to us I don't think you can say for sure.

Agreed. Now leave those butterflies alone and get back to anomaly research

I`m not seeing a hexagon and the shadow is certainly not hexagon shape either.

Anyone who has used a crop tool knows that moon pics have been altered...Its so obvious that an amateur fakes them as well, not someone with graphic design background,,,ask Gary Mckinna or whatever his name is, he will tell ya

reply to post by cavalryscout


Maybe Apollo 13 was never intended to touch down on the moon. Maybe it was a recon mission to gan intel on what's going on round on the Dark side?

Originally posted by JamesMc82
reply to post by cavalryscout

 

Maybe Apollo 13 was never intended to touch down on the moon. Maybe it was a recon mission to gan intel on what's going on round on the Dark side?

Well Apollo 8 & 10,11,12 had been in orbit round the Moon so I doubt it!!!

Could be one of these remnants of the Apollo LM?

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by cavalryscout
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Okay but wind and water formed those shapes.

I don't thing there is wind or water on the moon.

Wrong it's volcanic!!!!

edit on 24-10-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

There arent any active volcanoes on the moon, and the ancient ones that did exist (the youngest being 1 Billion years old) formed large plains of basaltic lava, not unusual shapes like this.

Originally posted by Thunda

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by cavalryscout
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Okay but wind and water formed those shapes.

I don't thing there is wind or water on the moon.

Wrong it's volcanic!!!!

edit on 24-10-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

There arent any active volcanoes on the moon, and the ancient ones that did exist (the youngest being 1 Billion years old) formed large plains of basaltic lava, not unusual shapes like this.

If you look cavalryscout claimed wind and water formed the ones on Earth I corrected him, you see the problem on here is people make assumptions on what shape nature can and cannot create that's why I posted the pictures of the rocks on Earth.

If you also look at my other posts on this thread I gave a rough size for the rock and stated the edges are not all the same length and it wasn't a hexagon.

Nice Post! Like many people I am fascinated with the theories of objects and monuments on the surface of mars and the moon. I'll have to check out more of this guys videos and see what else hes got. with the reports of nasa blotting out areas on the red planet and our satellite, Every anomoly should be studied.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
Could be one of these remnants of the Apollo LM?

edit on 10/25/12 by verylowfrequency because: link fix

Exactly what I was thinking.... Do we know where abouts this was found? An easy thing to investigate.

reply to post by DreamerOracle


Its to large its about 30 ft across so it's not a lander.

And this is interesting:
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by brintonwhite


Explained half way down on this page