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

page: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Your points are noted but please consider the following. One of the things that will be done before releasing the processing method will be to show it consistently recovers same object from different pictures or viewing angles. As for stitching, this is a single 70mm Hasselblad image so no stitching was done. Lastly, I don't think any structure or surface features of possible artificial origin will always be clearly visible. It just depends on the age of the object and the rate of impact and regolith accumulation in the area.

Thanks for the PS. At least you are seeing the same object(s) that I did which is a good sign.



Originally posted by wildespace
reply to post by PINGi14
 


What pattern are you talking about? I can see no pattern in your image. If you mean the two white spots next to each other, they are most likely small craters.

It would take a lot more to conclude that what one sees is an array of artificial-looking objects.

P.S. I think I see now what you're talking about. Giving the low resolution and your post-processing, they are undoubtedly image artifacts. In addition to your circular things, I can see vertical lines and some other patterns. In fact, having looked at the rest of the image, I think it's the result of stitching the panoramic image. I may be wrong. But my point is, if there were arrays of artificial objects on the Moon, they would look clearer than the barely-visible patters which you bring out with image processing.
edit on 29-3-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-3-2013 by PINGi14 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by PINGi14
 



One of the things that will be done before releasing the processing method will be to show it consistently recovers same object from different pictures or viewing angles.


There you go with the teasing again. Honestly, you're losing your audience. Let me give them a sneak preview of the sort of BS manipulations you do. Remember, the original film had to be digitized or you wouldn't be able to play these games. Let me know if I'm getting warm:

Here's what you start with:



Then you zoom in so the pixellation creates nice sharp edges, then goose the contrast so that natural features begin to look unnatural. In this case, the normal variations of color on the cliff face begin to look like letters:



Up the brightness and Gamma, and things get really interesting:





That was fun! Let's see you do that with the Moon!
edit on 29-3-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by PINGi14
 


I see a repeating pattern in the box where some processing was done and above it.
Which photo is that?



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


It's AS08-13-2329 history.nasa.gov...
It's inside the huge Pasteur crater, and apparently the first photo of Earthrise taken by a human.

The patterns may be emulsion marks, perhaps made by the film-dragging mechanism. Or they might be the result of the digitising process.

In any case, here's a permalink with LRO imagery: Click

Here's the QuickMap permalink: Click
edit on 29-3-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by arianna

The smudged high-resolution image AS15-P-9625 is perfectly adequate to make a positive evaluation of what is really on the surface at this location but you may have to enhance the image to find out.


Your as bad as the OP , smudged is good to you, don't think so I can see whats in the picture rocks,dust and craters.
edit on 27-3-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


So wmd_2008, all you can see in the image is rock, dust and craters. Are you really that blind to what is there?

Do you not see where the airbrushing procedure has been applied on the high resolution image? I have enhanced a hi-res crop of this location and I can assure you that the 'spacecraft-type' anomaly and the surrounding area contains a huge amount of detail. I can inform members that there is no spacecraft there, just the shape of one. What is really on the surface at this location is enough to make your hair stand on end. The object detail is quite remarkable.

Of course, it is possible that a ship landed there in ancient times and that is what originally formed the shape in the landscape, but since that time it's obvious from the enhanced image I have produced that over time many changes have taken place.

In fact, there is so much detail showing it's understandable why the image was changed by the image handlers. The problem with this type of image manipulation is that the truth of what is really on the moon, especially at this particular location, has been concealed from the general public and this type of manipulative action goes against all the principles and interests of scientific discovery.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Wow, those are big words you're using. Care to present screenshots and point out where exactly there was airbrushing on high-res images? And what did you see when you "enhanced" those parts? I only see nice crips terrain with rocks and craters and various topography features.

Have you ever considered that it might be just you imagination and a strong desire to believe? Alien presence on the Moon is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
It's AS08-13-2329 history.nasa.gov...
It's inside the huge Pasteur crater, and apparently the first photo of Earthrise taken by a human.

Thanks for that.



The patterns may be emulsion marks, perhaps made by the film-dragging mechanism. Or they might be the result of the digitising process.

No, they look like someone copied an area of the image over another area. I don't see those patterns on the The Apollo 8 Flight Journal or the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth versions.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
So wmd_2008, all you can see in the image is rock, dust and craters. Are you really that blind to what is there?

I know that I shouldn't be always talking about it, but you leave me no other choice.

Before accusing other people of being "blind to what is there" you should remember the test we made some time ago, right?



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   
The photo that has that repeating pattern is the one available on the Archive.org site.

That shows that being a TIFF is not a guarantee of being a better image.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by arianna

The smudged high-resolution image AS15-P-9625 is perfectly adequate to make a positive evaluation of what is really on the surface at this location but you may have to enhance the image to find out.


Your as bad as the OP , smudged is good to you, don't think so I can see whats in the picture rocks,dust and craters.
edit on 27-3-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


So wmd_2008, all you can see in the image is rock, dust and craters. Are you really that blind to what is there?

Do you not see where the airbrushing procedure has been applied on the high resolution image? I have enhanced a hi-res crop of this location and I can assure you that the 'spacecraft-type' anomaly and the surrounding area contains a huge amount of detail. I can inform members that there is no spacecraft there, just the shape of one. What is really on the surface at this location is enough to make your hair stand on end. The object detail is quite remarkable.

Of course, it is possible that a ship landed there in ancient times and that is what originally formed the shape in the landscape, but since that time it's obvious from the enhanced image I have produced that over time many changes have taken place.

In fact, there is so much detail showing it's understandable why the image was changed by the image handlers. The problem with this type of image manipulation is that the truth of what is really on the moon, especially at this particular location, has been concealed from the general public and this type of manipulative action goes against all the principles and interests of scientific discovery.


But it's not a depression, it has elevation (IE like a hill, with trenches on either side).

You'd be better off saying that something is buried there. That is something I can't say you are 100 percent wrong. I could say "Unlikely", but I can say with 100 percent it's not a depression from something having landed there because it's not a "hole" but instead "sticks out".



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Once again your delusional state is shown please indicate what you think is airbrushed also please indicate how you know and can prove it , if you can't please shut up!!!



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
For members who seem to doubt the sincerity in the text I posted above here is an animation of the 'spaceship' location seen in image AS15-P-9625. The start image is a png crop from the high resolution version which then progresses into a png enhanced version of the same image. Take note of the artistic theme of the architecture.





If you are interested in viewing a larger version of the enhanced image, click the Direct link below.

Direct link:

i985.photobucket.com...
edit on 31-3-2013 by arianna because: addition of link



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by arianna
So wmd_2008, all you can see in the image is rock, dust and craters. Are you really that blind to what is there?

I know that I shouldn't be always talking about it, but you leave me no other choice.

Before accusing other people of being "blind to what is there" you should remember the test we made some time ago, right?



No ArMaP, you shouldn't still be keeping on about it. The 'test', as you call it, is not really relevant to the visual information contained in the animation and the larger image at the Direct link

As I have said before, in many of the images there is 'hidden' detail that the eye cannot see. It is only when an image is enhanced that the obscure detail becomes visible. This particular hi-res image was slightly different in that it had been airbrushed which created a 'fog' over important surface detail. The object of the exercise was to remove the 'fog' and expose what, if anything, was on the surface underneath. I have to admit that I was quite surprised at what the procedure revealed.

In view of what is showing in the animation I wonder how many members are still of the opinion that the 'spaceship' anomaly is a just a natural formation and nothing more.
edit on 31-3-2013 by arianna because: text
edit on 31-3-2013 by arianna because: (no reason given)


jra

posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
In view of what is showing in the animation I wonder how many members are still of the opinion that the 'spaceship' anomaly is a just a natural formation and nothing more.


All I can see are natural formations. And I'm not sure what your animation is supposed to reveal exactly. I just see the contrast getting adjusted to more extreme levels, but nothing strikes me as being artificial or unnatural in the image.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
No ArMaP, you shouldn't still be keeping on about it. The 'test', as you call it, is not really relevant to the visual information contained in the animation and the larger image at the Direct link

The test is relevant to any image you analyse, as it was done specifically for that, but I will stop talking about it.


As I have said before, in many of the images there is 'hidden' detail that the eye cannot see. It is only when an image is enhanced that the obscure detail becomes visible.

No amount of enhancing (even real enhancing and not your version of enhancing, that only reduces the number of shades of grey in the images) can bring back something that is not visible in any image, because if it's there it's visible. Yes, it may be just noticeable, but it's visible. Nobody has a kind of "magic trick" to show "hidden detail".


This particular hi-res image was slightly different in that it had been airbrushed which created a 'fog' over important surface detail. The object of the exercise was to remove the 'fog' and expose what, if anything, was on the surface underneath. I have to admit that I was quite surprised at what the procedure revealed.

So wrong... If any "fog" was introduced through the use of the airbrush tool, there is no way of removing it, as the original pixels were replaced or mixed with those added by the airbrush.

Do you know anything about digital images? You say so many wrong things that it makes me wonder if you even know how a digital image is made.


In view of what is showing in the animation I wonder how many members are still of the opinion that the 'spaceship' anomaly is a just a natural formation and nothing more.

It looks like a natural formation to me, in all of the 35 images in which it appears.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Well ArMaP, I am very concerned for you. Considering your experience I am very surprised that you think the enhanced image only shows natural formations. Are you possibly in a state of denial as to what is really on the lunar surface? With respect, may I suggest you put your purist ideas about the technical details of imaging to one side and examine the enhanced image in minute detail. It is a lossless png version so you will know that what you are seeing are not image artefacts.

From viewing the enhanced image I am convinced there are many similar places on the moon where structural formations are in evidence constructed to an intelligent design. I wonder if the lunarians drink beer.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
Well ArMaP, I am very concerned for you.

Thanks, no need for concerns.



Considering your experience I am very surprised that you think the enhanced image only shows natural formations.

Well, maybe I see only natural formations because of my experience.


Are you possibly in a state of denial as to what is really on the lunar surface?

Not likely, I am never in a state of denial about anything.



With respect, may I suggest you put your purist ideas about the technical details of imaging to one side and examine the enhanced image in minute detail.

I cannot put my "purist ideas about the technical details" because I am looking at a result of those technical details, doing that would be like ignoring, while looking at a painting, the technique used to make it.


It is a lossless png version so you will know that what you are seeing are not image artefacts.

If the PNG is made from an image that was originally a JPEG then we will not see new artefacts, but we still be looking at the original artefacts. What was the format of the original image you used?


From viewing the enhanced image I am convinced there are many similar places on the moon where structural formations are in evidence constructed to an intelligent design.

Have you looked at the higher resolution versions available?


I wonder if the lunarians drink beer.

I do not like beer.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 04:34 AM
link   

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!!!



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
For members who seem to doubt the sincerity in the text I posted above here is an animation of the 'spaceship' location seen in image AS15-P-9625. The start image is a png crop from the high resolution version which then progresses into a png enhanced version of the same image. Take note of the artistic theme of the architecture.





If you are interested in viewing a larger version of the enhanced image, click the Direct link below.

Direct link:

i985.photobucket.com...
edit on 31-3-2013 by arianna because: addition of link


Let's work with this permalink: Click where you can zoom in down to 0.5 meter resolution. Please post a screenshot pointing out where you see the structures. On your enhanced image, I can only see craters and wrinkles in the terrain, exagerrated by enhancement. Certainly no "architecture" as you call it.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join