Some unexpected objects found in a lunar view.

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



As a matter of interest with reference to the image you posted above, what is the distance in your estimation between the viewpoint and the terrain?




posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Once again someone says they see artificial structures (by one name or the other), but doesn't point to them so that we could be certain what the OP is talking about. Looking at that area in the original Apollo panoramic image AS15-P-9625 I can see not so many rocks, but lots of wrinkles and folds in the terrain, and of course lots of small craters.

It's strange that arianna refers to the needle-shaped spaceship, whereas both Apollo and LRO imagery show it to be a fold in the terrain.

We the "deniers" say we see rocks and other natural features because that's what we see, not because someone told us so. We know what buildings and roads look like from high altitude. Come back to us when you see something like this on the Moon:
edit on 29-4-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



As a matter of interest with reference to the image you posted above, what is the distance in your estimation between the viewpoint and the terrain?



A lot closer than this.

i985.photobucket.com...

That's all we need to know.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
wmd_2008, I asked a simple question and all you keep saying is there are only rocks and fold formations.

Well, I suggest you take a look at the animation below. I have used your image which I am sure you will verify.
It would be wise to look very closely at the enhanced view as there are many instances showing of what I am calling "Artistic Architecture" where groups of structures have been designed to an intelligent plan and then constructed to either form a face or head. Now, the big question is, how were the builders of these structures able to perform such a feat in what we are led to believe is an atmosphere which is practically a vacuum?

I have placed an ellipse around some of the features that can be seen in wmd_2008's image as well as the enhanced version but there are many more. BTW, I do not think any roads will be seen on the surface as the connections between buildings are probably all under cover, if on the surface, or constructed underground.





posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


It was Aliensun who called it a needle spaceship.

I referred to the area as a long spacecraft shape which, many thousands of years ago, it may well have been. From the evidence showing in this area I think there may be an ancient story to be told that is related to the intelligent 'ancient ones' who landed on the lunar surface and who also landed on this planet and constructed the many megalithic structures that are still in evidence around the globe today. Have you any thoughts about this possibility?

Maybe there are many megalithic structures on the moon but we are not looking for them as we have been conditioned to believe there is nothing there except redundant hardware from past space missions.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Here is the image from your gif I have put A next to a crater I will show a closer view of the elipse area next to it.



Here is the closer view crater marked A, view is rotated compared to yours.



Craters, rocks, lumps and bumps NOTHING else.
Why do you insist on lower res images are you just trying to keep this BS going as long as possible.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by arianna
 


Why do you insist on lower res images are you just trying to keep this BS going as long as possible.


wmd_2008, there is no BS here as you call it. Are you a dis-information agent or similar?

Even in your hi-res image, which is a top-down view, detail can be seen on the surface. There are even features in this image that can be aligned and related to the Apollo oblique view. The Apollo views are much better for guaging perspective and aiding the recognnition of rectilinear forms and features.

And yes, I will keep this going as long as I possibly can because people really need to know what is really on the lunar surface and not what they have been told to believe is there.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by arianna
 


Why do you insist on lower res images are you just trying to keep this BS going as long as possible.


wmd_2008, there is no BS here as you call it. Are you a dis-information agent or similar?

Even in your hi-res image, which is a top-down view, detail can be seen on the surface. There are even features in this image that can be aligned and related to the Apollo oblique view. The Apollo views are much better for guaging perspective and aiding the recognnition of rectilinear forms and features.

And yes, I will keep this going as long as I possibly can because people really need to know what is really on the lunar surface and not what they have been told to believe is there.


Using the old conspiracy disinfo agent cliche
yet again arianna YOU put your ellipse shapes round some lumps and bumps on the surface and claim a structure it's just features of the terrain nothing more and nothing less!!

As for aligning features that was the whole point of the image
also there are NO rectilinear features in your image and once again lets point out the resolution issue here is some info on the image from the Apollo panoramic scan.

The scan first posted, Image Name: AS15-P-9625 Spacecraft Altitude: 116.43 km

Here is a close up at full zoom from the Apollo scan. (screen grab)



The crater at the top left of the image here it is full res from the LRO.(screen grab)



Now that image will be taken again with the sun at a better angle do YOU HONESTLY think anything would not show at that resolution that you claim to see at a far lower resolution


Some people might be taken in by your BS but anyone who has any photographic experience will not!!!
edit on 30-4-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-4-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by arianna
 


Why do you insist on lower res images are you just trying to keep this BS going as long as possible.


wmd_2008, there is no BS here as you call it. Are you a dis-information agent or similar?

Even in your hi-res image, which is a top-down view, detail can be seen on the surface. There are even features in this image that can be aligned and related to the Apollo oblique view. The Apollo views are much better for guaging perspective and aiding the recognnition of rectilinear forms and features.

And yes, I will keep this going as long as I possibly can because people really need to know what is really on the lunar surface and not what they have been told to believe is there.


The problem is: you make ovals and declare that something is there.

You take photo's an manipulated them beyond recognition, which adds data to the images that was not there in the first place.

You've made claims many times over that you are able to bring out things which are hidden, which any one who has ever taken the time to work with digital images knows that is a out right lie. You cant bring out what isn't there.

But you can add artifacts to images that were not there.

You have yet to actually highlight anything definitive and show that it is artificial in nature. Instead, you again, manipulate the image well past what it's capable of, circle an area and declare that there is something artificial that is there.

A vast majority of even people that DO believe there are things on the moon that are artificial have even stated that they are not seeing anything in your images.

You then turn around and act shocked, as though it should be very obvious to even a blind person.

When asked to please actually highlight the objects you are seeing, you merely circle them. When people still can't see it, you claim that you have "special" abilities to see things that others can not (so then why are you acting so shocked at others not seeing it? Hmmmm?).

I see rocks, boulders, craters, hills, mountains, cliffs, faults and cracks, folded terrain.

I have yet to see a single building, machinery, pipes, equipment, artificial domes, etc in a single one of your pictures.

Even threads that people have posted on here of Koala Bears on Mars, while a rather ludicrous claim, I could see the shape they were talking about.

So yes, of course you can keep making your claims. However, others here will be looking at them with a critical eye.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


It would appear that you are interested in craters and rock formations whereas to me they are only of minor concern. What is more interesting is the detail that is contained within the ellipse you have drawn on the narrow angle image. I see that I will have to prepare an example of what can be seen in the Apollo oblique view and highlight the same feature in the hi-res view.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Looks like a Rapala fishing lure up there on that photo bucket image.
Helluva cast but got a snag on the moon



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by arianna
 


Why do you insist on lower res images are you just trying to keep this BS going as long as possible.


wmd_2008, there is no BS here as you call it. Are you a dis-information agent or similar?

Even in your hi-res image, which is a top-down view, detail can be seen on the surface. There are even features in this image that can be aligned and related to the Apollo oblique view. The Apollo views are much better for guaging perspective and aiding the recognnition of rectilinear forms and features.

And yes, I will keep this going as long as I possibly can because people really need to know what is really on the lunar surface and not what they have been told to believe is there.


The problem is: you make ovals and declare that something is there.

You take photo's an manipulated them beyond recognition, which adds data to the images that was not there in the first place.



Now hang on a minute! If you look at the animation you will see that I have marked ovals on the adjusted image provided by wmd_2008 as well as the enhanced view. If you compare the two images you will see that the features I have marked in the wmd_2008 image are also showing much more clearly in the enhanced view. If you are having problems seeing what's there view with a magnifying glass rather than digitally zooming in.

I will post a view in the near future pointing out some of the structural features that I see in the direct view posted in the OP. It would seem that some members do not want me to find any structures on the moon but I shall keep researching as I firmly believe there could well be a link between the people who built the structures on the moon and the ancient ones who constructed all the ancient megalithic structures on this planet.
edit on 30-4-2013 by arianna because: amend text



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna

It would seem that some members do not want me to find any structures on the moon but I shall keep researching as I firmly believe there could well be a link between the people who built the structures on the moon and the ancient ones who constructed all the ancient megalithic structures on this planet.
edit on 30-4-2013 by arianna because: amend text


You have it all wrong we would really like to see some structures but how many threads from you now with the same tactic over enhance lower res image draw ellipse and claim structures.

Then it's one excuse after another re why you wont use an LRO image to back your claim we all know why there are NONE of the structures you claim.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by arianna
 


Why do you insist on lower res images are you just trying to keep this BS going as long as possible.


wmd_2008, there is no BS here as you call it. Are you a dis-information agent or similar?

Even in your hi-res image, which is a top-down view, detail can be seen on the surface. There are even features in this image that can be aligned and related to the Apollo oblique view. The Apollo views are much better for guaging perspective and aiding the recognnition of rectilinear forms and features.

And yes, I will keep this going as long as I possibly can because people really need to know what is really on the lunar surface and not what they have been told to believe is there.


The problem is: you make ovals and declare that something is there.

You take photo's an manipulated them beyond recognition, which adds data to the images that was not there in the first place.



Now hang on a minute! If you look at the animation you will see that I have marked ovals on the adjusted image provided by wmd_2008 as well as the enhanced view. If you compare the two images you will see that the features I have marked in the wmd_2008 image are also showing much more clearly in the enhanced view. If you are having problems seeing what's there view with a magnifying glass rather than digitally zooming in.

I will post a view in the near future pointing out some of the structural features that I see in the direct view posted in the OP. It would seem that some members do not want me to find any structures on the moon but I shall keep researching as I firmly believe there could well be a link between the people who built the structures on the moon and the ancient ones who constructed all the ancient megalithic structures on this planet.
edit on 30-4-2013 by arianna because: amend text


1) You are completely wrong, I would very much like to see structures being found on the moon. It would be a very exciting time, and would make space exploration explode!

2) Your pictures have never looked like any kind of structure to even the most devout believers on here. The ones that get upset that every Mars picture people say "it's just rocks", are looking at YOUR pictures and end up saying the very thing they hate hearing about Mars pictures: They're just rocks.

You just can't seem to get it through your head. It's not just one or two people on here that are not seeing what you think we should see. It's darn near EVERYONE.

It's like me posting this picture:



And saying there are artificial structures where I drew my red circle.......What? Can't you see them?? They are right there! You're just not looking hard enough.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
 

I will post a view in the near future pointing out some of the structural features that I see in the direct view posted in the OP.


That would indeed be very kind of you, especially when considering the title of this thread: "Some unexpected objects found in a lunar view."

I guess the majority here is still waiting for these 'objects' to show up somewhere in your images and I hope that the term in the near future doesn't mean days or weeks?!


P.S.: Would it be asked too much to actually draw the shapes directly into the image so we can do an A/B comparison?
edit on 30-4-2013 by jeep3r because: text



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeep3r

Originally posted by arianna
 

I will post a view in the near future pointing out some of the structural features that I see in the direct view posted in the OP.


That would indeed be very kind of you, especially when considering the title of this thread: "Some unexpected objects found in a lunar view."

I guess the majority here is still waiting for these 'objects' to show up somewhere in your images and I hope that the term in the near future doesn't mean days or weeks?!


P.S.: Would it be asked too much to actually draw the shapes directly into the image so we can do an A/B comparison?
edit on 30-4-2013 by jeep3r because: text


We have been waiting for his objects since his first thread on the subject so don't hold your breath!!!



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 

I asked once why don't you work with higher resolution photos, and this is what I meant.

This is the highest resolution version of photo AS15-P-9625 available (as far as I know).
(This area is the same as the one marked with an "A" on the post by wmd_2008)


Please show us what you see on this image, as soon as you can.

edit on 30/4/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by arianna
 

I asked once why don't you work with higher resolution photos, and this is what I meant.

This is the highest resolution version of photo AS15-P-9625 available (as far as I know).
(This area is the same as the one marked with an "A" on the post by wmd_2008)


Please show us what you see on this image, as soon as you can.

edit on 30/4/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)


This is the problem ArMaP with this particular image. It would appear that someone has applied a 'dodge' tool, quite heavily I might add, to create a light-coloured 'haze' over the surface detail before its release. In the selection you show there is not much that is recognizable in the lighter-coloured area except for some shapes in the darker portion of the image in the top left-hand corner. The only way to see what could be under the 'haze' is to use specialist tools within a photo-editing program such as Photoshop. I will have a look at the image you have provided and see if I can retrieve some of the surface detail.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna



Please show us what you see on this image, as soon as you can.


This is the problem ArMaP with this particular image. It would appear that someone has applied a 'dodge' tool, quite heavily I might add, to create a light-coloured 'haze' over the surface detail before its release. In the selection you show there is not much that is recognizable in the lighter-coloured area except for some shapes in the darker portion of the image in the top left-hand corner. The only way to see what could be under the 'haze' is to use specialist tools within a photo-editing program such as Photoshop. I will have a look at the image you have provided and see if I can retrieve some of the surface detail.


Get real what a load of tosh



A few seconds on some free software the usual lumps bumps and craters!



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


I can get a darker version of that from the original 16 bits per pixel TIFF file, although it takes some time to load a 1.9 GB image in Photoshop on a computer with just 3 GB of RAM.





top topics
 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join