Jaxa.jp: Incredible High Definition Video of the Moon Taken by a Japanese Spacecraft

reply to post by internos


Thank you for explaining just how much difference it makes to have this new view. Excellent work. Now even a dummy like me can appreciate the fact that we ought to see the moon's surface and composition like never before.

Amazing photo's and comparisons Interno's Soon our technology will give us the human eye view of our moon, planets and stars. Thanks for all the information. I love seeing and learning about outerspace and this forum is an awesome place to learn.

Originally posted by Solarskye
... and this forum is an awesome place to learn.

No, it's not. Pick up a book, such as one by Carl Sagan. Watch a well-made documentary. Google up "Astronomy Picture of the Day". Learning by reading the stuff here will give you a ridiculously distorted view of everything.

Originally posted by cdrn

Originally posted by Solarskye
... and this forum is an awesome place to learn.

No, it's not. Pick up a book, such as one by Carl Sagan. Watch a well-made documentary. Google up "Astronomy Picture of the Day". Learning by reading the stuff here will give you a ridiculously distorted view of everything.

And just what has been distorted in this piece? And why are you so certain that there are less distortions in these more mainstream sources?

reply to post by cdrn


I read all the time but I was just commenting on this forum and the great work and time spent in high definition videos taken by the Jaxa satellite pics and interno's contribution to this thread. He's done a great job and I've learned from it. Carl Sagan is an awesome man who's played a leading role in Nasa and it's space program and planetary science.
I've read the Dragons of Eden along with Cosmo's. It's sad that he's no longer with us today and I can still hear the waterfall in the background. Carl is dearly missed by me and probably thousands of space dreamers.

First of all, i think that everyone has something to teach, and that everyone has much to learn.
I like to learn and i'm neither able nor interested to teach, but i disagree with people who tells the other people what to read and what to think: if i'm correct, ATS encourages sharing of opinions/data/knowledges in a civil manner, this is NOT Harvard.
- Some post adds contents to the discussion.
- Some posts adds NOTHING to the discussion.
- Some post even SUBTRACTS contents from the discussion.
Now, in general, there's much stuff here that is questionable, some stuff could even be called garbage, buth there are members who adds FIRST QUALITY contents, much good stuff including FIRST HAND SOURCES and REFERENCES: the reader decides what is worthy to be read, as in all the civil countries.
Since everyone has a brain, to tell the others how to think and what to read/watch/believe is USELESS to say the least, IMO.


[edit on 19/11/2007 by internos]

I agree fully that there are some members who know what they are saying. The problem, however, is this: how do you know how to discriminate between useful and useless (or flat out incorrect) information if you don't know much about the material in the first place?

To put it in another way: who is more likely to believe John Lear, a planetary scientist or someone without a good science background?

Originally posted by cdrn
I agree fully that there are some members who know what they are saying. The problem, however, is this: how do you know how to discriminate between useful and useless (or flat out incorrect) information if you don't know much about the material in the first place?

To put it in another way: who is more likely to believe John Lear, a planetary scientist or someone without a good science background?

I have to state beforehand that i dislike to talk about people who's not discussing in the thread, so i talk about the topic in general:
you have made an EXCELLENT point IMHO.
For example: how many people gets CRAZY after reading certain books written by pseudo-researchers? Take a look at the shape-shifting craze...
..i mean ... it started from somewhere...and of course NOT from an university
And yes, not only useless/incorrect: it could be DANGEROUS to take as truth whatever we read. And sadly, not all have the ability to distinguish what is knowledge and what is garbage: but fortunately i've seen that here on ATS, at least frequently, when someone makes otrageous claimings, there's always someone who points it out: asking evidences supporting his/her claimings etcetera.
This is the ideal behaviour in order to deny ignorance IMHO.
I've appreciated your last comment: a star for you.

Learning is not for the lazy, or the feint of heart. Often one must hack their way through a jungle of distortion and ego driven drivel to reach the true oracles of wisdom. But it isn't a worthless trip, not only for what will be learned in the end, but the craft of the trail that will serve in good stead for future exploration into the unknown.

Sadly, most schools teach facts, not the art of discovering facts.

This image
from JAXA has some wierd anomalies.

Here is one.
.
files.abovetopsecret.com...

and a closer view
.
files.abovetopsecret.com...

there are many more and much airbrushing.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by imd12c4funn]

reply to post by imd12c4funn


I suppose you know that you are looking at frame from a video and not a photo, with all that this implies in image quality.

And I don't see how that small area is different from the other area just above and to the left, only this second area is larger, but the type of terrain is the same.

reply to post by ArMaP


The original was a high res still shot (link is first on my reply)

2nd image is to show where I zoomed.

3rd image is the zoomed area only,

Video frame or not, the image was a still at JAXA

I agree there are more anomalies bordering the focused area.
My point is it seems that due to shadowing, these artifacts are not resting on the surface, but rather floating just above it.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by imd12c4funn]

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
The original was a high res still shot (link is first on my reply)

I know.

Video frame or not, the image was a still at JAXA

Yes, and that is why I asked if you knew about that being video grab, because video is not meant to be seen in separate frames, it is meant to be seen in sequence, so individual frames have a lower quality than photos of the same resolution.

One of the characteristics of video frames is that the colour reproduction is far from perfect, making things look stranger than they are.

I agree there are more anomalies bordering the focused area.

I did not said that there are more anomalies, I just said that the other area looks the same. I do not consider those things anomalies.

My point is it seems that due to shadowing, these artifacts are not resting on the surface, but rather floating just above it.

I understand what you say, but I do not see it that way, I just see it as the shadows of the hills.