Zeeman Crater - NASA editing at it's finest?

NASA shouldn't be allowed to blurr things out, if our tax dollars pay for the technology and man hours required to get images of the moon then we should be able to see what is really there

One of the more obvious NASA airbrush jobs.

I play with graphics (not photoshop... I hate that software) and photo manipulation as a hobby. So, I took the crater image directly from the OP and ran it through some filters and enhancements. This is what I got.

*Top image is original.
*Middle image is with the above listed processes.
*Bottom image is blown and sharpened.

I make no statement to the accuracy of the results. I did it just to see what I could see and thought I'd share it here.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d4f2f54160bf.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by redoubt


Ignoring the smudge,whats that thing just on the right side of it?
Looks like a boring machine head breaking surface.

Ignoring the smudge,whats that thing just on the right side of it?
Looks like a boring machine head breaking surface.

Your guess and speculation is as good as mine or anyone else's. But it is certainly eye catching.

reply to post by zorgon

What's odd?
That's the image. I cropped a piece of the high resolution version.

reply to post by Phage


Theres a lot of things that look like "Lego Blocks" ( best way I could explain them)
Mainly in the top half..I assume the scale would make them very large. They appear to have very straight edges and perfect corners..Some have the dimples,hence the Lego Block notion.
As there appears to be quite a few of these features and that would be hard to imagine in a natural sense, are they some form of artifact from editing and manipulation of the film?

usually im a pretty open person...but if that is "NASAs finest editing"....then i should work for NASA...

reply to post by redoubt


What you are seeing there has, by it's side, but because they are so small you can't see them, the following objects. They are... a single sneaker/trainer and a shopping trolley. I say that because, wherever you find an abandoned ex railway tanker, it's bogies removed and beached like a metal whale, in a seemingly inaccessible place, the trainer and the shopping trolley are never far away.

reply to post by Phage


I most certainly do.

Maybe an impacted crystalline based structure. As opposed to an Iron/alloy based structure.

By the way, depth of field overlay has nothing to do with elevation overlay as those photos are taken from

completely different angles,focal settings, shutter speeds, and back lighting. The only result would be an "Overall out of focus" print. Good old Hasselblad experience I do have.

Such singular malformed irregularities would be evident throughout the whole photo.

What you are trying to imply, is that the singular smudge rises to such a great elevation compared to the
surrounding terrain that it "out focuses itself." For this to be the case, the "smudged object" in question would
have to be literally thousands if not tens of thousands of feet higher in elevation to the standard.
This fact alone should raise some questions to not only you, but your data. As this explanation results in
the acceptance that there is a structure that is worth further investigation. I assume you would call it a
Devils Tower ,WY. like structure. And yes, I have climbed Devils Tower.

reply to post by FireMoon


Oh yeah, now I can make out the hobo behind pushing the trolley
Nice pickup

reply to post by FireMoon


You're daft. It's a roll of liverwurst. Those are just very small craters that skew the dimensions.

reply to post by Phage


Yes you did, and it is from a completely different angle, rotation, focal setting, and light meter.
So , there is nothing odd, it is just that your "cropped" photos are both not in parameter or context.

Hope that helps. And Remember, Buckaroo Bonzai always Wins......

Originally posted by Plan2exist18
usually im a pretty open person...but if that is "NASAs finest editing"....then i should work for NASA...

My sentiments, exactly.

I know NASA is not operating on a stellar budget, but, seriously? To suggest that is an attempt at airbrushing to "hide the truth" is pretty silly. They have had a much better way of hiding images that people don't need to see. It's called a safe - where classified materials are kept. That, or a shredder, incinerator, etc.

If I worked for a shadow government agency and someone submitted that to me for release approval, I'd execute them on the spot (can't have them being mad at me and telling tales to the media, now can we?). The photo would be shredded and burned and all digital copies purged.

That way, when some industrious hobbyist astronomer takes a picture of something you don't want them to, you can give them all the credit for finding it and say "Gee, thanks, how did we ever miss that?" You don't deny anything is there, you just fail to confirm it.

reply to post by Aim64C

That way, when some industrious hobbyist astronomer takes a picture of something you don't want them to, you can give them all the credit for finding it and say "Gee, thanks, how did we ever miss that?" You don't deny anything is there, you just fail to confirm it.

Or simply missplace them, as with all them Apollo Film crates

Back in the 1800's people were able to edit photo's to achieve things such as this:

circa 1865: In this photo by famed photographer Mathew Brady, General Sherman is seen posing with his Generals. General Francis P. Blair (far right) was added to the original photograph.

Photo tampering throughout history

Yet people still believe that NASA are simply smudging out secrets on the moon, despite the evidence to show it's due to a variety of reasons...

What a world...

Pardon me, but on the left hand side of that crater picture, i think i recognise another supposed anomally thats claimed to be pencilled out.
When you see it next to the eye like crater(just t the left of the eye, you can see its shadow caused by the terrain being straight up and down or nearly so.....
Its a sort of dark triangle off to the left of that eye in the crater rim.
anone see what im saying?

Can someone tell me how far above the Moon the 1960's lunar orbiter was when photographing the surface?? I ask because on another site I just visited, somebody was excited about seeing stairs. Stairs??
I have assumed that all the images we see are of immense objects, man/alien made or not. Any stairs seen would be for mega giants. Surely!
Anyway, would be great to have an idea of size of objects we are discussing if possible.

reply to post by zorgon


I saw only the top of your reply where you post:

Zeeman Crater

Well this one is an older find, but recent events in China brought it up... so I figured it was a good time to get away from the missile launch in California and get back to space

A long time ago... When Clementine flew...

but I didn't continue scrolling down past the Clementine photo and I wish I had 'cause it would have saved me some researching since when I came back to your reply and finally scrolled all the way down, everything I had "discovered" was there. I had gone to another forum where a member posted the video for Zeeman crater then I came back to that post and got the coordinates for Zeeman crater (73°08'30 s 145°40'40 w). I saw the "erased" area which is not where the anomaly in the video is located, using surrounding craters as reference, but it's still puzzling. The area where the anomaly is seen looks "normal" at Google Moon so I have no idea what the hell is going on. If the area where the anomaly is not erased, then what was?

The Google Moon image is sharper than the youtube video where roundness is squared and because of the low resolution one could say that the "anomaly" isn't really there since the higher res. image makes the area look natural. However, in the Google Moon image, towards the top of the erased area where it comes to an arrowhead point, to the left of the point I could swear I see what looks like a rectangle edge as if that area was overlaid on the "original" image!

However, one can find the Clementine image that doesn't show the shadow area as if it had been messed with.


BTW, Zorgon, I saw this at Open Mind from you:

Well John has more sources than I do and has been at this a lot longer than me. I got into this whole mess actually by looking at a photo of the Moon that John claimed was a mine in operation... well it took a few days, but I saw it and the rest is history...

Could you post that photo or supply a link to it as I sure would like to see a genuwine lunar photo showin' honest-to-goodness mining on the moon. After all, if you were convinced ... and I hope it doesn't take me a few days!

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Yeah I pinched a thread from Ickes forum and reposted here - it got a lot of attention too

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You say there are LO data sets? you got a link for them please?

Still looking for the Collier images used in his Mars Moon lecture:
(snip)

The colon after the word lecture makes it look like the video is going to include Martian images that might show something to ponder. But no, the video is just this guy talking about stuff that's difficult to digest and I jumped forward in the video but no Martian images. Please post a link to them!

Originally posted by redoubt


Your guess and speculation is as good as mine or anyone else's. But it is certainly eye catching.

It looks more like a xmas tree! But all joking aside, you think you are seeing a vertical structure when in reality, that is if it's real, you could be looking at a receding flat ground fracture.