Some unexpected objects found in a lunar view.

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by arianna
No, it's just a method I sometimes use to make an initial examination of an image.

If you get good, reliable results, I guess it's OK, but this is what I see when I use an optical magnifying process to look at my computer screen.



You will also know that zooming in too far using digital procedures has many disadvantages, for example, loss of clarity.

Every tool has it's good and bad uses. Just because we have a good hammer it doesn't mean that you use it to open a door instead of using a key. It doesn't mean either that you use to demolish a house.

The first thing you should do is the have a well calibrated monitor, something that, from what I have seen, most people do not have (even designers...).

As for zooming in on an image, if you start losing clarity then it means that you are going too far with your zooming. Resizing suffers from the same problem, if an image starts losing clarity at 300% then you shouldn't resize it more than those 300% (and always use a resizing mode that does not resample the image).


As a matter of interest, what size screen are you using?




posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Are you sure that is the same area as you have highlighted in blue?

What is the number of the original raw scan tile you downloaded?

I clicked on one of the images and it would take 12 hours to download it (via wireless connection).

edit on 3-5-2013 by arianna because: add text



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Are you sure that is the same area as you have highlighted in blue?



Arianna it got to the point after many threads and posts on threads you have to bite the bullet as they say pick a hi-res LRO image YOU know corresponds to were you think you see a structure.

Then do your stuff on that image tells us the software used and step by step what you do to the image either by screen captures or a detailed description because you seem to be trying to avoid what is being asked or said about your images.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Are you sure that is the same area as you have highlighted in blue?



Arianna it got to the point after many threads and posts on threads you have to bite the bullet as they say pick a hi-res LRO image YOU know corresponds to were you think you see a structure.

Then do your stuff on that image tells us the software used and step by step what you do to the image either by screen captures or a detailed description because you seem to be trying to avoid what is being asked or said about your images.



You are missing the point! What the released NASA images are showing you is what they want you to believe. The images have been changed to cover important surface detail and by doing so creates visual confusion They are not showing the original images. The camera doesn't lie, but I don't have to tell you that. The enhanced sample I have provided above was corrected to maintain greyscale levels. The features I have pointed to in the image are definitely there. I also think there is a story waiting to be told about how the structures around the spacecraft shape came into existence. How can you believe that what you are seeing in the hi-res versions is the genuine original when the images I have posted show signs of definite built structures around the area of the spacecraft shape?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
You are missing the point! What the released NASA images are showing you is what they want you to believe. The images have been changed to cover important surface detail and by doing so creates visual confusion They are not showing the original images. The camera doesn't lie, but I don't have to tell you that. The enhanced sample I have provided above was corrected to maintain greyscale levels. The features I have pointed to in the image are definitely there. I also think there is a story waiting to be told about how the structures around the spacecraft shape came into existence. How can you believe that what you are seeing in the hi-res versions is the genuine original when the images I have posted show signs of definite built structures around the area of the spacecraft shape?


You are working with NASA released images or have you forgotten that any excuse do AVOID doing what is being requested.

Please prove the point then give us the steps in your process and you do the same on the image ArMap gave you, if that image has been edited by NASA you have NOTHING to worry about have you so tells us the process and use it on that image.
edit on 3-5-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


With respect, I do not have to go along with the 'dribble' you keep coming out with. The image I worked on is a genuine 40-year old NASA product that was originally captured on film. The yellow and green arrows are pointing to features on the surface that are definitely not natural formations. The features showing in the image are self-evident, are they not good enough for you? The LROC images, although they have much improved resolution, are not really suitable for recognition of the lunar surface features that can be observed in the Apollo image.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


With respect, I do not have to go along with the 'dribble' you keep coming out with. The image I worked on is a genuine 40-year old NASA product that was originally captured on film. The yellow and green arrows are pointing to features on the surface that are definitely not natural formations. The features showing in the image are self-evident, are they not good enough for you? The LROC images, although they have much improved resolution, are not really suitable for recognition of the lunar surface features that can be observed in the Apollo image.



Well YET another excuse you claim NASA alter the images so why would the picture you are using be any different do you really think we are dumb, YOU wont do it because YOU know, in fact we all know it will show your are WRONG



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
Are you sure that is the same area as you have highlighted in blue?

Almost 100% sure, as it's a little difficult to see anything in the photo you posted.



What is the number of the original raw scan tile you downloaded?

4, the image name is AS15-P-9625_0004.tif.


I clicked on one of the images and it would take 12 hours to download it (via wireless connection).

It took me 2 hours for each file (I only got the right file at the third try
), it looks like that site could be a little faster.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
The LROC images, although they have much improved resolution, are not really suitable for recognition of the lunar surface features that can be observed in the Apollo image.

They are, like the Kaguya/Selene photos, if you know how to look at them.


Anyway, that's why I went looking for a high resolution version of the Apollo image.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 04:54 AM
link   
You must have spent endless valuable hours examining these Apollo photos and I respect you effort.
So I beg you to listen to reason and understand that you are studying the result of your own creation when manipulating these old photos. Seriously, you cannot deny that dismissing the hires of the same spots is weard. There's nothing in there.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordAdef
You must have spent endless valuable hours examining these Apollo photos and I respect you effort.
So I beg you to listen to reason and understand that you are studying the result of your own creation when manipulating these old photos. Seriously, you cannot deny that dismissing the hires of the same spots is weard. There's nothing in there.


That's interesting you should say that as there are 'things' definitely there. Viewing the enhanced image shows up many features that cannot be plainly seen in the downloaded NASA image. If the original NASA image and the enhancement are compared it can be observed that some of the features showing in the enhanced image are also visible in the original image as well, therefore these features have to be real and not a figment of my imagination.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
If the original NASA image and the enhancement are compared it can be observed that some of the features showing in the enhanced image are also visible in the original image as well, therefore these features have to be real and not a figment of my imagination.


The features are there, but your processing (I cannot call it enhancement, as it doesn't enhance a thing) removes the more subtle details, so the features appear slightly different, with the smooth curves changed to more sharp features, making a crater look more like a cylinder-shaped hole.

And there's your interpretation, that's where things appear as artificial.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by arianna
If the original NASA image and the enhancement are compared it can be observed that some of the features showing in the enhanced image are also visible in the original image as well, therefore these features have to be real and not a figment of my imagination.


The features are there, but your processing (I cannot call it enhancement, as it doesn't enhance a thing) removes the more subtle details, so the features appear slightly different, with the smooth curves changed to more sharp features, making a crater look more like a cylinder-shaped hole.

And there's your interpretation, that's where things appear as artificial.


No ArMaP, the process I use does enhance an image, maybe not to your standards because the greyscale pixel values are being changed by the process. Nevertheless, the processing does show up features that are not easy to observe in the NASA original.

There again, what about the structures that can just be made out in the original NASA download? If the downloaded image is a genuine reproduction of the original mission film and structures are showing, who could have built them because I am quite sure that no one from this planet constructed them? There are too many of them.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
No ArMaP, the process I use does enhance an image, maybe not to your standards because the greyscale pixel values are being changed by the process.

Then I suppose you have a different definition of "enhance", as I thought that meant something like "make it better".


Nevertheless, the processing does show up features that are not easy to observe in the NASA original.

Yes, but not in their original shape, as the reduced range of greyscale values removes some details.


There again, what about the structures that can just be made out in the original NASA download?

They don't look artificial to me.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
 

There again, what about the structures that can just be made out in the original NASA download? If the downloaded image is a genuine reproduction of the original mission film and structures are showing, who could have built them because I am quite sure that no one from this planet constructed them? There are too many of them.


As far as I understood, there's no general agreement yet regarding the structures you claim to see on those images. So before asking who built them, shouldn't we at first identify them and clearly highlight any visible traces or edges in the original imagery!?


Here's my suggestion:
Shouldn't we rather move on now to other parts of the lunar surface and analyze those using the available LROC imagery? Independent of the perspective and lighting, anything that's articifical and not completely buried (eg. due to meteor ejecta etc.) should be clearly visible. And then, once we agreed upon something unusual on those images, we might proceed with the more intriguing questions that you were already addressing in your OP ...

I'm just saying that - based on the available source images - I don't think you (or we) will be able to find further proof to substantiate your claims.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 


Seriously jeep3r to get some idea of what you are dealing with I suggest you review this thread by arianna.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Arianna is always right everyone else is always wrong although as can be seen a few posts back here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

they will never accept a challenge to prove what they claim



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Well, you know some on here for much longer than me and I didn't realize that OP had already been posting about lunar anomalies back in 2011 ...

In any case, OP will have to agree that a lot of other image sources, references and explanations have been posted by various members to clarify the situation, whereas none of that led to further evidence regarding his claims. At the same time, I don't give up hope that OP's next thread may contain something unusual that we can actually 'see' and agree upon ...



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by jeep3r
 


Seriously jeep3r to get some idea of what you are dealing with I suggest you review this thread by arianna.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Arianna is always right everyone else is always wrong although as can be seen a few posts back here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

they will never accept a challenge to prove what they claim


No wmd_2008, it's you who have it all wrong and I do not have to accept your challenges. You seem to think just because you have an interest in photography, other members haven't a clue. I would ask you to think again. I have probably been developing film and processing prints from film probably longer than you. Some members seem to feel that I do not know what I am talking about. I would like to remind members that before I retired my profession required me to have a broad spectrum of knowledge related to digital imaging and associated processes in conjunction with digital design projects and development.

You keep saying I never admit I am wrong. Well, as I have said it before and I will say it again, if I am wrong I will say I was either wrong or misguided. I believe the current topic under discussion is very important and to substantiate my claims there are many other avenues to be explored in order to find the relevant answers but also, research of the LROC image library will also have to be employed. Trying to prove something as fact is not a five-minute job. It takes hours of research to examine the images before a positive conclusion can be reached.





top topics
 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant