Some unexpected objects found in a lunar view.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

 

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

You may be right with what you're saying above!

It's just that some of us spent considerable time on this thread (and I even flagged it), so now we more or less deserve to see clear outlines of the objects that were announced in the title!

Until now, there was nothing 'unexpected', nor were there any 'objects' ... but I'll keep watching this thread, perhaps we were all wrong?!

Is this "better"?

(click for full size)


PS: I noticed now that the image I posted before was resized, so here's the full size image, just click the thumbnail.

reply to post by ArMaP


Yes, that's a much better image.

I did some work on the other image and at the time thought that it was not a very good image for hi-res.

With the new image, I zoomed in 150% (in IE8) and with a good magnifying glass examined the detail closely and what I could see in the darker section to the top left can only be described as "magical". If you're good at artistic recognition and appreciation you should not have any problem in seeing what I mean. The detail at the bottom of the image is also interesting.

Originally posted by arianna
[
With the new image, I zoomed in 150% (in IE8) and with a good magnifying glass examined the detail closely

Seriously that's how you check an image

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Seriously that's how you check an image

Didn't you know about that?

It's not the first time I see someone using that "system".

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Seriously that's how you check an image

Didn't you know about that?

It's not the first time I see someone using that "system".

Well I have used ctrl and + to quickly zoom in on images on ATS posts but I would never use a magnifying glass to look at something on screen.

For what arianna has been claiming for months it seems that system is an epic fail or they have some other eyesight problem or both .

Or it could mean it's just that easy to spot possible surface anomalies for the experienced. The problem is the general public or the skeptics do not see the subtle signs of artificiality for no fault of their own. It means more clear and obvious evidence is necessary. I do see most of what aria is pointing out but I also see that most general public will need stronger material.

The extraordinary implication of positive find of artificiality on the Moon means the supporting evidence will need to be clearly mind blowing and recognizable as artificial... Not easy but nothing will be found if nobody is looking. There is a lot of lunar surface image data that hasn't been looked at by anybody.

Originally posted by PINGi14
Or it could mean it's just that easy to spot possible surface anomalies for the experienced. The problem is the general public or the skeptics do not see the subtle signs of artificiality for no fault of their own. It means more clear and obvious evidence is necessary. I do see most of what aria is pointing out but I also see that most general public will need stronger material.

The extraordinary implication of positive find of artificiality on the Moon means the supporting evidence will need to be clearly mind blowing and recognizable as artificial... Not easy but nothing will be found if nobody is looking. There is a lot of lunar surface image data that hasn't been looked at by anybody.

Well what's clear to me and other VERY experienced people on here that airanna is chasing shadows, his so called enhancements do nothing for an image as has been pointed out MANY times on MANY threads.

You could not hide these structures he claims to see on LRO images at 50cm/pixel irrespective of the angle the images were taken at as you claim to see them as well why do you look at the previous arianna threads and locate even one of his claimed structures on an LRO image at full resolution

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by PINGi14
Or it could mean it's just that easy to spot possible surface anomalies for the experienced. The problem is the general public or the skeptics do not see the subtle signs of artificiality for no fault of their own. It means more clear and obvious evidence is necessary. I do see most of what aria is pointing out but I also see that most general public will need stronger material.

The extraordinary implication of positive find of artificiality on the Moon means the supporting evidence will need to be clearly mind blowing and recognizable as artificial... Not easy but nothing will be found if nobody is looking. There is a lot of lunar surface image data that hasn't been looked at by anybody.

Well what's clear to me and other VERY experienced people on here that airanna is chasing shadows, his so called enhancements do nothing for an image as has been pointed out MANY times on MANY threads.

You could not hide these structures he claims to see on LRO images at 50cm/pixel irrespective of the angle the images were taken at as you claim to see them as well why do you look at the previous arianna threads and locate even one of his claimed structures on an LRO image at full resolution

As a matter of interest I use LROC images quite a lot but because the majority of them are top-down views they lack the one important thing that is required for recognition of built structures and that is perspective. Although the Apollo images are well dated they do fulfill this major requirement. I have to admit that I have pushed some of my image enhancements to the limit but sometimes it is necessary to do so.

Are you saying that you cannot see any structures in the image I posted at the start of the thread?

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by arianna
[
With the new image, I zoomed in 150% (in IE8) and with a good magnifying glass examined the detail closely

Seriously that's how you check an image

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

Well, as you are an experienced photographer you should know and be able to appreciate the advantages of using optical magnification over digital. You will also know that zooming in too far using digital procedures has many disadvantages, for example, loss of clarity.

reply to post by jeep3r


I am preparing some more images of the area in question and will post them shortly when I have time.

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by arianna
[
With the new image, I zoomed in 150% (in IE8) and with a good magnifying glass examined the detail closely

Seriously that's how you check an image

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

Well, as you are an experienced photographer you should know and be able to appreciate the advantages of using optical magnification over digital. You will also know that zooming in too far using digital procedures has many disadvantages, for example, loss of clarity.

Like I said I will do the quick and crude ctrl&+ to have a quick lock at an image in a post.

As for your statement above YES optical over digital when taking an image but doing what you are doing a magnifying glass to look at the screen can ONLY magnify the pixels of the image so there is no real benefit in doing that and that may go a long way to explain some of your threads.

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by PINGi14
Or it could mean it's just that easy to spot possible surface anomalies for the experienced. The problem is the general public or the skeptics do not see the subtle signs of artificiality for no fault of their own. It means more clear and obvious evidence is necessary. I do see most of what aria is pointing out but I also see that most general public will need stronger material.

The extraordinary implication of positive find of artificiality on the Moon means the supporting evidence will need to be clearly mind blowing and recognizable as artificial... Not easy but nothing will be found if nobody is looking. There is a lot of lunar surface image data that hasn't been looked at by anybody.

Well what's clear to me and other VERY experienced people on here that airanna is chasing shadows, his so called enhancements do nothing for an image as has been pointed out MANY times on MANY threads.

You could not hide these structures he claims to see on LRO images at 50cm/pixel irrespective of the angle the images were taken at as you claim to see them as well why do you look at the previous arianna threads and locate even one of his claimed structures on an LRO image at full resolution

As a matter of interest I use LROC images quite a lot but because the majority of them are top-down views they lack the one important thing that is required for recognition of built structures and that is perspective. Although the Apollo images are well dated they do fulfill this major requirement. I have to admit that I have pushed some of my image enhancements to the limit but sometimes it is necessary to do so.

Are you saying that you cannot see any structures in the image I posted at the start of the thread?

"they lack the one important thing that is required for recognition of built structures"

Soooooooo

Okay, that means that in this top down image here.......you can't see these ancient (and they are very ancient) artificial structures????



I can see them just fine. Most are the size of a house, they are not mega sized structures either.

But their shape an shadows do help.......all the while being a "top down" image.

reply to post by eriktheawful


Yes, they are mastabas and the location is Egypt. These ancient burial chambers are 4000 years old at least.

Now show me something similar with the same clarity from a LROC image if you can find one.

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

Yes, they are mastabas and the location is Egypt. These ancient burial chambers are 4000 years old at least.

Now show me something similar with the same clarity from a LROC image if you can find one.

I can't.....UNLESS THEY ARE THERE!

That's the point you seem to be missing and something that you seem to obsess over.

IF something were there, it would be visible even in a top down image. You don't NOT have to have an angled image unless it top of it is completely buried.

Nor should you have to distort the image so badly to "make something appear" there. At 0.5 m/ pixel, if there is something there, the LROC will see it and it will stand out as long as it's a couple of meters in size.

You won't see a wrench. To small. But you would see a building/dome/structure if it was there.

You would not have to take the image and distort it like you do, it would be plainly visible, and it would indeed have geometric shapes that stand out against the natural terrain.

If we can see the Apollo LEM's with the LROC........then it should see your "structures" just fine.

But so far, all you've shown us is lunar terrain, and insisted that it's artificial or that there are structures there.

ETA:

Here's an LROC image, that's top down, and you can see the small artificial things in this image quite clearly:

I think that if I posted an image where the structures were 'in your face' so to speak the majority of people posting on this thread would still be in denial. except the experienced observers.


Here is an image that I have cropped from the image shown in the OP.

The first image I have marked with arrows rather than placing an ellipse around the features. The yellow arrows are pointing to shapes that I believe could well be structures. The green arrows are pointing to some other unusual features.

The second image is the same as the first without markings. The third image is a slightly closer view without markings. A larger view of the second unmarked image can be seen at the Direct link below.

Study the shapes very closely. Do you think they are rocks or shapes that look like rocks?















Direct link to larger version:

i985.photobucket.com...

I'm not really seeing any structures...

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).

reply to post by arianna


I don't see anything special, except for your processing.

But why do you keep on using those small images?

Do you see the blue rectangle on the image below?


That's roughly the area on the image below, taken from that 1.9 GB I talked about before and resized to 50%.

reply to post by arianna


Well ArMap has given you this image a better resolution than you used your enhancement process on




So please show us the structure