A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: Unnatural Features on Moon Surface

reply to post by wildespace


Yes, I will do that for you but unfortunately at the present time I am having problems with getting the ACT-REACT map to load. Also your Permalink only produces a blank ACT window with only the ACT logo showing in the top left corner therefore I am unable to view the image.

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wildespace

 

Yes, I will do that for you but unfortunately at the present time I am having problems with getting the ACT-REACT map to load. Also your Permalink only produces a blank ACT window with only the ACT logo showing in the top left corner therefore I am unable to view the image.

Once you click on the link, wait. It take a bit to load up.

I see the same thing that you do, but then about 20 seconds later it begins to pop up.

reply to post by eriktheawful


Thanks for your reply erik.

I clicked on the link for the Permalink and waited 3 minutes but the result was still the same as before. I think I may have to contact ACT as it appears that a request from my computer is being locked out for some reason. It's all very peculiar as everything loaded perfectly last week.

Here is 1920x1080 crop of the area with repeating surface anomaly from AS08-13-2329.

Download full TIF - (2Mb file): lh5.googleusercontent.com...


I tried to highlight some of the more interesting features in the pic below. The highlights are my modification to the untouched picture above. By untouched I mean individual highlighting of areas using brush, rectangle etc. Inside green rectangles are repeating surface features I was talking about.









files.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by arianna
The image used for the production of the animation was a screen capture from the viewer then saved as a png. No jpg image was used for the enhancement.

The images used by the viewer are JPEGs.

I have to query why there seems to be a general reluctance, not just by you but some other members as well, to acknowledge the object detail that can be observed in the enhanced image.

No reluctance from me, but you keep on calling it "enhancement" when, in fact, you are reducing the overall image quality.

reply to post by PINGi14


Did you use the image from the Archive.org site?

It looks like someone didn't like the vertical lines and decided to do some copy/paste.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by PINGi14

 

Did you use the image from the Archive.org site?

It looks like someone didn't like the vertical lines and decided to do some copy/paste.

Yes the source file was from archive.org, which seems to be least compressed and closest to original. By closest to the original I mean certain object does not appear in the same image hosted at NASA History site. I am assuming the object was removed in NASA History version rather than the object being added to archive.org version.

What did you mean by vertical lines and copy/paste?

Originally posted by PINGi14
Yes the source file was from archive.org, which seems to be least compressed and closest to original.

Yes, that image was never compressed with a lossy compression method (like JPEG), we can see that it has much more detail and no compression artefacts.

By closest to the original I mean certain object does not appear in the same image hosted at NASA History site. I am assuming the object was removed in NASA History version rather than the object being added to archive.org version.

I think your assumption is exactly the opposite of what happened, as that TIFF image has several marks of cloning (or copy and paste) actions, as you can see in the images below.

What did you mean by vertical lines and copy/paste?

In the left it's "your" image, with "my" image in the right (taken from the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth)

(I hope it works, I have never tried to post two images side by side )



You can see that on "my" image there's some vertical lines, from top to bottom. In "your" image the lines are also there, but not as noticeable, but you can see what looks like some attempts at removing the lines (or at least, being close to the lines, that's what I think was more likely).

If you follow the vertical line you can see, to the left, several areas that appear duplicated (always horizontally), with the first area appearing three times.

PS: I forgot to say that I applied, to both images, a technique I use to make the "texture" more visible.

I highly encourage everyone to download the 2Mb TIF file above and see it for themselves. You are free to do whatever with the image. Try to find any evidence of tampering, enhance it, or just examine the detail and intricacy of the surface features and let your mind wander.

As a rational person I can not say with a straight face that these surface features are surely the result of film or compression artifacts. Whether of natural or some extraterrestrial intelligence origin, there seems to exist some sort of order perceivable if barely, to human mind behind this chaotic landscape. For one, the slightly darker area between lighter outlines/delineations seem to be less illuminated or lower in height and therefore key to giving depth and better definition of the landscape.

What are the natural explanations for these intricate shapes and lines given our knowledge of erosion process on the Moon and age of the area? If the alternative explanation is the artificial origin theory, how can we even go about recognizing an alien landscape and architecture? So far, the best evidence for artificiality seems to be these large intricate structures that exist side by side in pair or three's. That is, assuming nature on the Moon has only been good at making holes in the ground and covering up the landscape with dust for the last billion years.

These are the areas where I see signs of cloning or copy/paste actions.

reply to post by ArMaP



I see what you mean now. It's a pretty convoluted theory and I don't know if I agree with it. What is the origin of the vertical lines that they tried to remove it? Are they something they don't want public to see? NASA has in the past shown no issues just stating something is an artifact without trying to remove them by copy/pasting from the same image. They didn't do a good job of it either, so why try to remove some sections of certain lines by copy/pasting and leave the others?


The other big thing against your theory would be that these identical structures don't seem to be pixel for pixel identical. They seem to be same structure but not pixel for pixel clones of each other.

Originally posted by PINGi14
I see what you mean now. It's a pretty convoluted theory and I don't know if I agree with it.

With what, that they were trying to remove the lines? I'm not convinced myself.

What is the origin of the vertical lines that they tried to remove it? Are they something they don't want public to see?

They appear in the other photos of that magazine, so I guess it was a camera or developing problem.

NASA has in the past shown no issues just stating something is an artifact without trying to remove them by copy/pasting from the same image. They didn't do a good job of it either, so why try to remove some sections of certain lines by copy/pasting and leave the others?

All cases where I have seen NASA images changed it was for some stupid reason and for use in some site more geared towards "public relations" than science.

This case looks as bad as those.

The other big thing against your theory would be that these identical structures don't seem to be pixel for pixel identical. They seem to be same structure but not pixel for pixel clones of each other.

They look like perfect copies to me, I have to check.

Do you think that those things were really on the Moon, and only on that version of the photo?

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by ArMaP

 

The image used for the production of the animation was a screen capture from the viewer then saved as a png. No jpg image was used for the enhancement.

Reference: wms.lroc.asu.edu...

I have to query why there seems to be a general reluctance, not just by you but some other members as well, to acknowledge the object detail that can be observed in the enhanced image.

When I have time I will produce a closer view of the objects on the surface at this location.

Well I will say again to prove your point zoom in on an area as there are high resolution images of the area, and indicate an area you see what you claim to see it really is that simple!!!

Here is a zoomed in image with another showing rectangles around some of the features. There are many interesting features showing in the image but you have to allow your mind time to recognize some of them. If you see what appears to be a face in the landscape, more than likely it will be a structure.

Some of the features would appear to be built structures to an intelligent design, but that's just my opinion.

You will have to decide for yourself whether or not the features are natural formations.

The image was darkened slightly.

These repeating structures do seem to occur mostly along a vertical line. It's quite puzzling. Here is the strip of the region around the vertical line where lots of identical structures appear. However not all are aligned vertically and repetition does not occur throughout the vertical line. Why repetition is not universal along the line?

Also, near the bottom of the strip, I placed a green rectangle around two near-identical structures that doesn't seem to be pixel for pixel identical. There may be more.






files.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by ArMaP


The other reason why I'm apprehensive of copy/paste manipulated by NASA theory without strong proof is because then that puts into question the credibility of NASA images. It's a slippery path that your theory is standing on and I think that's a line neither NASA nor countless scientists relying on NASA data would want crossed. They may have brushed out or filtered some images but creating their own scenery just to erase some line is a deception on a whole new scale.

Originally posted by PINGi14
The other reason why I'm apprehensive of copy/paste manipulated by NASA theory without strong proof is because then that puts into question the credibility of NASA images.

It's not a theory, I have seen at least two cases in which NASA sites had images that were obviously edited.

I will look for them.

It's a slippery path that your theory is standing on and I think that's a line neither NASA nor countless scientists relying on NASA data would want crossed.

As I said, that never happened in the science related sites, in those I have never seen a sign of an edited image.

Here they are.

Exhibit 1: Apollo 11 photo AS11-44-6552, available on the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth. It's a TIFF file, and can be downloaded from this page.
(it's the last image, the 50MB TIF)

This one was found by papajake, as you can see here.

When looking at the right bottom corner of the image we can see what looks like someone failed to select the whole area where the Moon was visible and, when they turned it to greyscale, the bottom and right pixels were left unaffected, as you can see in this 500% zoom of the bottom left corner.



Then someone noticed that the Earth, too, looked affected by something, in this case it looks like someone used the bucket fill to make the sky completely black, making a mess of the subtle tones in Earth's limb, as you can see below.




Exhibit 2: Apollo 11 image S69-40308, from the NASA's Human Space Fligth (the image visible now is not the one that was there at the time, they replaced it soon after it was posted on that thread)

This one was found by DrBunsen, here.

There was a clear use of the cloning tool (just copy & paste), as you can see on the following animation made by myself.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/baaa70480cf26940.gif[/atsimg]

You can compare the images available now with those that were there on 2009, thanks to the Internet Archive.

I rest my case.

Your "unnatural" objects on the Moon pale in comparison with what has been found on the asteroid Eros.

near.jhuapl.edu...



Scientists call it a boulder, but you have to agree that it looks artificial.

reply to post by ArMaP


ArMaP, what are those artefacts on the surface in the 2009 image?

reply to post by arianna


What artefacts? The "cloned" footprints?