I'd like to show you a de-blurred HOAX picture of the Clementine Structure...

Um...if NASA wanted to "cover up" something on the Moon...wouldn't they just, you know, NOT RELEASE THE PIC AT ALL?!

The area imaged in the OP is known as Zeeman Crater, located at 75 deg S, 135 deg W.

It's been imaged by many different probes from different space agencies around the world.

Here's a shot from NASA's old Lunar Orbiter in the 1960's



Here's a shot made from Apollo images put together:



If a structure was there it would be almost 25 miles wide.

I'm always suspicious of an OP that fails to list coordinates of where the images are......and also who do not provide links to unaltered ORIGINAL images from their sources.

Originally posted by jaffo
Um...if NASA wanted to "cover up" something on the Moon...wouldn't they just, you know, NOT RELEASE THE PIC AT ALL?!

Perhaps. Perhaps not. You really have no idea, and as a matter of fact we shouldn't be speculating out of thin air unless we had something to back up the claim with.

For anyone curious about PTM, there's an interactive java applet that you can play with to give you an idea of what it can do ..

It essentially simulates 3d lighting on a 2d image which can let you bring out detail..

www.wessexarch.co.uk...

reply to post by miniatus


Only when you have multiple source images of the same object. That is not what the OP has done.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
The area imaged in the OP is known as Zeeman Crater, located at 75 deg S, 135 deg W.

It's been imaged by many different probes from different space agencies around the world.

Here's a shot from NASA's old Lunar Orbiter in the 1960's

And nearby that area of Zeeman Crater there is also.... THIS


The "Good Old" Lunar Orbiter....

reply to post by Arken


Yep, the giant digital "watch".

Looks like the batteries need to be replaced......

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
Ahh what a cool technique.

How is it done? Is it a program one downloads or buys?

I know absolutely nothing about stuff like this otherwise I'd be putting it to use on a few pics of Mars esp the Gusev crater region. There are areas there that are blocked out just like the Clementine pic.

So what do you think this is? Do you have any theory as to why this area was blurred?

I can see at the bottom that it looks to be rounded like a wall. I am not saying it's a wall just using it for a visual.

Polynomial Texture Mapping is a way of relighting an object by combining photographs from multiple lighting angles. Instead of having just a single color per pixel, the result actually stores a lighting equation per pixel. That allows new images to be generated from new light angles.

That was the only way, 3000 year old cunieform tablets could be read:

Originally posted by TheCrimsonGhost
reply to post by Spacespider

 

I think you missed the point, being the the original anomaly seen in the image looks nothing like the OPs "de-blurred" and highly altered image. I think some folks figured out that this dude created a new account just to try and push this method that doesn't really do anything but create false artifacts.

Quite the contrary. One is in plan view ( the latest pic) . The other is an elevation or perspective view. If you notice, there are two structures to the left, in the plan view, that correspond in the OPs pic. Then there's a larger structure to the right. It fits exacly with the OPs pic.

Edit: I meant the rendered pic that Ectoplasm provided.

Originally posted by DarkAngel8
Hahaha laughing my butt off...not really.. Im sure there is a forum for children's topics. But this is where we discuss topics of a different nature. Not choo choo trains. Either way the photo doesnt show much. To my eyes anyway. If anything its an old crumblimg structure. I dont see aliens or spaceships. I wish I did though

Awww.. Just didn't make your day, huh? Yes, by all means, let's get back to the very mature and serious topics and conclusions that are reached here on the Alien and UFO forum. ... "That can't be a rock, I can see a mouse/alien/tank/______fill in the blank." .... "It must be some type of building blurred out by NASA, it's a conspiracy!". ... "Balloons? Just because they are round, float, and reflect light?" ... "This crop circle has to be made by aliens". Yeah, you're right, those are actually the funny ones.

Originally posted by funkster4

Originally posted by Nyiah
What are we supposed to be seeing unblurred aside from more rocks?

What is this "structure" supposed to be, according to theorists, anyway?

...you would be looking, in this case, at rocks forming a very convincing artificial-looking structure, right in the middle of a crater: that is actually quite unusual, I would think...

edit on 27-8-2013 by funkster4 because: (no reason given)

And quite apart from what you 'should' be looking at here, is what you should not be looking at that's the most relevent point here...you see...according to official explanations over this one particular image, it has been stated officially in responce to numerous questions put to NASA over the years about the blurring of the image in this section, that there is NOTHING THERE UNDER THE BLURRED AREA.

Get that?

The official explanation for the blur is that the spacecraft had a comms dropout (as can happen on these missions) and rather than having a black rectangle in the image where the missing data was, a blur was added in (yeah, i know!)...but apparently, this new technique shows this statement and hence the official explanation to be false.

Make of that what you will.

Originally posted by Arken
After all, there is "something unusual" behind the "infamous" Clementine blurred image!

I wander what we could do with this tool...

Where we can dowload this tool?
S&f.

I don't know but I sure hope you find it and use it on your mars anomalies pictures!

I can't wait to see what you find using this software

Originally posted by jaffo
Um...if NASA wanted to "cover up" something on the Moon...wouldn't they just, you know, NOT RELEASE THE PIC AT ALL?!

That has been done.

People who spend a LOT of time in NASA archives have noticed that the images from certain magazines jump a few images here and there...the explanation if that the images are damaged, or not presentable (poor quality, image damage, basically a crap shot).

This is a reasonable explanation, but why not show the 'bad shots'? Allow people to decide for themselves if they wish to view/download them? They did pay for the shots after all, good and bad.

The early shots were only edited superficially simply because at the time they were generally released, nobody had PC's or anywhere near the processing power of today...they thought if they removed the really obvious stuff, there would be no way people would discern anything that slipped through visual censors.

They released the early shots with confidence and minimal 'work' done on them.

Later images are put through automatic systems backed up by super computers.
These identify, isolate and then automatically edit images that are found to have inadvertently captured things they feel the public ought not to see. They work too.

This technique if going to be invaluable used on the older imagery, although i doubt the more recent images will be more revealing even with this technique applied, but here's hoping.

reply to post by eriktheawful


You mentioned that a structure spanning the area that appears blurred, as seen in the image provided in the opening post, would cover roughly 25miles. That would be enormous, by human standards.

I while back (a few years ago) I saw the, now very popular, scale of the universe diagram. The one I am referencing is on an interactive web-site, you begin at the scale of a human and you can then choose to zoom in or out.

Zooming in allows you to compare the relative size of different objects, all the way down a quark. You can also zoom out and see the scale of the entire known Universe.

I remember being quite impressed with just how small our Sun is, when compared with other celestial bodies out there. There are planets that make the sun seem like a runt and there are other stars out there that make Sol seem like it is a grain of sand!

After realizing just where we are, in relation to other massive objects in space, I started wondering about any potential for harboring life the other massive stars and planets may have.

Maybe some of the larger Universal bodies formed a multi-planet star system. If one of these massive star-systems were arranged in a way that a 'Goldilocks Zone' could be created and maintained, and if life developed and evolved on those planets (assuming the physical laws, such as gravity, atmospheric pressure, etc., of the habitat are also scaled up to match the size of the planet), could they produce alien beings that are incedibly massive - compared to us?

Based on the size of the system I am describing, we would appear to be microscopic beings when seen side-by-side with those aliens.

They could build bigger machines; a 25-mile wide machine/craft would seem unthinkable to us, but may be as common as a bicycle to beings of that size.

It would be hard to miss a being that makes us look like germs, but I suppose there could be beings out there that fall somewhere inbetween our size and the size of the super-massive alien beings I've mentioned in this post.

Maybe there is nothing to it, but, for me, it's an interesting thought to consider.

Originally posted by NoRulesAllowed
As some already pointed out, you cannot get something from nothing.

Your false pretense is that NASA "manually blurred" out some parts of the image. Reality is that this is not a "blur" in a sense there would still be SOME data to retrieve (hence "blurred") but more likely a data drop-out or image artifact where there is NO information whatsoever to get from it, even with the most sophisticated anti-blur image processing methods.

The result you got to is exactly what was expected..it closely resembles the shape of the spot/artifact and not (as you believe) what is "hidden behind it".

On a side-note, the idea that NASA manually and pretty pathetically would "blur out" sections from images is silly. Even a child could do a better job if there was really something to hide...and not do a crude half-ass job like in the example picture.

That part is not so silly, NASA or agency working on their behalf did some quite horrendous obscuring jobs in the early days, some of them came to light when more sophisticated techniques, and computers became more readily available. Now, don't ask me why pictures were interfered with because I don't fecking know, personally they should have left the raw image as it was, in all cases, but they didn't.

Originally posted by Bilk22

Originally posted by TheCrimsonGhost
reply to post by Spacespider

 

I think you missed the point, being the the original anomaly seen in the image looks nothing like the OPs "de-blurred" and highly altered image. I think some folks figured out that this dude created a new account just to try and push this method that doesn't really do anything but create false artifacts.

Quite the contrary. One is in plan view ( the latest pic) . The other is an elevation or perspective view. If you notice, there are two structures to the left, in the plan view, that correspond in the OPs pic. Then there's a larger structure to the right. It fits exacly with the OPs pic.

Edit: I meant the rendered pic that Ectoplasm provided.

edit on 28-8-2013 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)

The guy who posted the picture even acknowledged the fact that the OPS rendering looked nothing like what was originally seen, but you can believe what you want. Fact is the OP created something from nothing and did not use any methods even resembling PTM.

reply to post by TWILITE22


Why do people still think he did this with a software? No PTM software was used because he couldn't figure it out. He edited a single compressed JPEG using different filters, saving each edit, then combined them. This is not even close to what PTM is. PTM requires multiple source images from different angles or lighting techniques and are then merged into a single image.

The OP is simply a charleton selling snake oil.

reply to post by funkster4


Phenomenal. Thanks for sharing this fascinating and sure to be much-used methodology. Really, really appreciate that you took the time to join up & make such a balanced, fascinating presentation as your first thread.

And the results, as said, are phenomenal. I am not surprised in the least, in terms of what we can see, incidentally - but I am rather joyous at seeing that much detail..

Well done Sir.

ETA - I can see that you managed to bring out the trolls and the deniers, and the really zealous deniers to boot. Unfortunate, but in a sense it brings further merit to what you've laid before us, so it would seem.

reply to post by PINGi14


But people ARE speculating. People are attributing to NASA motivations and plans which are quite simply not supported by any actual evidence. Seriously, if they wanted to hide something, they simply wouldn't release the pics. They wouldn't release them and try to blur them out. To think otherwise is to mold the existing reality to fit one's preconceived ideas.

Originally posted by MysterX

Originally posted by jaffo
Um...if NASA wanted to "cover up" something on the Moon...wouldn't they just, you know, NOT RELEASE THE PIC AT ALL?!

That has been done.

People who spend a LOT of time in NASA archives have noticed that the images from certain magazines jump a few images here and there...the explanation if that the images are damaged, or not presentable (poor quality, image damage, basically a crap shot).

This is a reasonable explanation, but why not show the 'bad shots'? Allow people to decide for themselves if they wish to view/download them? They did pay for the shots after all, good and bad.

The early shots were only edited superficially simply because at the time they were generally released, nobody had PC's or anywhere near the processing power of today...they thought if they removed the really obvious stuff, there would be no way people would discern anything that slipped through visual censors.

They released the early shots with confidence and minimal 'work' done on them.

Later images are put through automatic systems backed up by super computers.
These identify, isolate and then automatically edit images that are found to have inadvertently captured things they feel the public ought not to see. They work too.

This technique if going to be invaluable used on the older imagery, although i doubt the more recent images will be more revealing even with this technique applied, but here's hoping.

I'm sorry, but you are out on a limb here. You are fitting existing documents into your theory by way of supposition. That's not science and it surely is not denying ignorance.