Structures/bases on the far side of the moon - where is ATS at

originally posted by: conundrummer

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
actually, it may be rather easy to prove though, but it'll require a piece of software for image analysis written for that particular purpose.

If a piece of software made to show moon images are tampered with shows no evidence of tampering, is the software malfunctioning?

since i'll write that software myself, it won't be malfunctioning - because if it would be, i would be able to fix it.
it may come handy to check other photos than those of the moon as well i guess.

a reply to: jedi_hamster

Well, what exactly would your software do? Would it just use image filters? If so, couldn't you just make it find whatever you want?

a reply to: jedi_hamster

You can look at and download LROC images from here:

LROC WMS Image Map

You can also use the quick maps site:

LROC Quick Maps

The LROC is able to get images as low as 0.5 m/pixel in many cases. Not 100 meters per pixel.

Not every image will be down to that resolution depending upon the altitude of the LRO when it made the image.

Still, it produces very outstanding images of the moon:

I think extraterrestrials are coming to this planet. Following that I believe they could be anywhere as a result. Dark side of the Moon. Under the ocean floor. They could set bases anywhere they want.

I think a lot of people fake photos or see things that aren't there, but that doesn't deter my beliefs on the matter or I'd have given up on this subject decades years ago.

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
- afaik, there are no good-resolution-enough photos of the side that we can see, that are from independent sources, either.

The best photos from a ground-based telescope come from the VLT in Chile. Here is an example. You can identify features down to a little over 100 metres in diameter.

So we know for a fact there is nothing much bigger than that on the near side.

- nasa was caught up tampering with photos more than once already.

there's quite some proof that tampering has occured on multiple occassions

You keep saying this but you present no evidence. I say you are lying.

Show me where "NASA was caught up tampering with photos" even once. I simply do not believe you, and I challenge you to show me you are not making this up.

there are plenty of examples of photos of the moon online that were tampered with by nasa. of course, you'll say it's all hoax.

So show us one. Just one image that NASA portrayed as an original photo but you say is tampered with. Shouldn't be hard, right? You say there are plenty.

they can, despite the atmosphere, snap a photo of a pack of ciggies or read a newspaper title using spy satellites, and they can only get 100m per pixel resolution in case of the moon? seriously?

No, you didn't read what I wrote. They can get 25cm per pixel, or about 10 inches, from the LRO in its lowest orbit. The 100 metres is for taking a photo of the moon FROM THE EARTH.

And 25cm per pixel is about the limit of spy satellites on Earth that we know about. Contrary to popular belief they can't read newspaper headlines from orbit. They might be able to take a photo that shows a whole newspaper as one or two pixels, but that is about it.

For decent resolution you need spy PLANES, not satellites.

still, where are those 25cm per pixel photos? because i've found LRO images. huge, over 1gb tiff files. 100m per pixel, not more. it is obvious for me that they have higher resolution photos. the question is, were they released?

LRO images are not 100m per pixel. We could get a lot better than that back in the Lunar Orbiter days in the 1960s. Most of them are 50cm-1m per pixel but some sites eg Apollo landing sites have been imaged at 25cm.

Just Google "LRO images", or "LRO Quickmap". All public, all free of charge.

a reply to: resistanceisfutile

I read about the same things years ago and they had my mind racing. Could this be something huge or what's going on here, is that really a mummy in a ship? It was all fascinating at the time, and more times than I'm willing to admit I got caught up in something I was sure was the end all be all of proof. Proof of what? Looking back I don't even know what I was looking for. I'm still curious I still look, and my opinion shouldn't matter to anyone but don't let the naysayers get you down.

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
- afaik, there are no good-resolution-enough photos of the side that we can see, that are from independent sources, either.

The best photos from a ground-based telescope come from the VLT in Chile. Here is an example. You can identify features down to a little over 100 metres in diameter.

So we know for a fact there is nothing much bigger than that on the near side.

- nasa was caught up tampering with photos more than once already.

there's quite some proof that tampering has occured on multiple occassions

You keep saying this but you present no evidence. I say you are lying.

Show me where "NASA was caught up tampering with photos" even once. I simply do not believe you, and I challenge you to show me you are not making this up.

there are plenty of examples of photos of the moon online that were tampered with by nasa. of course, you'll say it's all hoax.

So show us one. Just one image that NASA portrayed as an original photo but you say is tampered with. Shouldn't be hard, right? You say there are plenty.

they can, despite the atmosphere, snap a photo of a pack of ciggies or read a newspaper title using spy satellites, and they can only get 100m per pixel resolution in case of the moon? seriously?

No, you didn't read what I wrote. They can get 25cm per pixel, or about 10 inches, from the LRO in its lowest orbit. The 100 metres is for taking a photo of the moon FROM THE EARTH.

And 25cm per pixel is about the limit of spy satellites on Earth that we know about. Contrary to popular belief they can't read newspaper headlines from orbit. They might be able to take a photo that shows a whole newspaper as one or two pixels, but that is about it.

For decent resolution you need spy PLANES, not satellites.

as i've said, i'm short on time. looking through all highres photos available directly from nasa - since only those can be taken into account as undebatable proof in this case - is not a small task. that's why i've said i'll write a software to do it, because i'm able to and that'll take much less time than looking through all those photos at maximum zoom manually. i will do it though, and i will post the results, whatever those may be.

If you haven't written the software yet, how do you know they're doctored? Seems like if you could come to that conclusion before writing the software, you should be able to demonstrate it to us without the software as well.

a reply to: conundrummer

If you haven't written the software yet, how do you know they're doctored? Seems like if you could come to that conclusion before writing the software, you should be able to demonstrate it to us without the software as well.

In order to come up with a process to find a pattern that is defined as "doctored", that pattern must already exist I would think. Every pattern matching algorithm I have worked with requires sample data. There is a lot of good code out there already that is free to use. ACCORD.net is one I would use for this. accord-framework.net... which is based on Aforge.net www.aforgenet.com...
These frameworks are pretty solid with image processing.

So I think that this could be done easily as long as there is a clear definition of what we are looking for.

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
- afaik, there are no good-resolution-enough photos of the side that we can see, that are from independent sources, either.

The best photos from a ground-based telescope come from the VLT in Chile. Here is an example. You can identify features down to a little over 100 metres in diameter.

So we know for a fact there is nothing much bigger than that on the near side.

- nasa was caught up tampering with photos more than once already.

there's quite some proof that tampering has occured on multiple occassions

You keep saying this but you present no evidence. I say you are lying.

Show me where "NASA was caught up tampering with photos" even once. I simply do not believe you, and I challenge you to show me you are not making this up.

there are plenty of examples of photos of the moon online that were tampered with by nasa. of course, you'll say it's all hoax.

I sense those goalposts shifting. You say here that there are plenty of examples online but when I ask to see one you say you have to write special software to identify them?

a reply to: Rob48

The Skipper guy has a pretty good list. So why do we need software when there is plenty to discuss here unless Jedi thinks these are all bunk.

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Really?

I can blow his first moon based imagery question out of the water without even trying.

This

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

is nonsense. I have a book that pre-dates the one he claims his lunar orbiter image is from that does not show the feature he claims.

There are lots of pictures of blurred out shapes of so called structures, crappy youtube videos and many many rumours and stories of things on the dark side of the moon.
I'm of the opinion that SOMETHING is up there, what that something is I don't know.
I never say no to structures on the moon because the universe is a fantastic place that we know very little about. I would love a private company with people who want to learn about the moon and its origins to get a robot up there and explore it from top to bottom. The problem is money though.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Really?

I can blow his first moon based imagery question out of the water without even trying.

Oh yeah! Well, have you seen Gilligan's or the Professor's anomaly site yet? Ginger's is good too but I prefer MaryAnn's.

Anyway, yeah, I think you misunderstood the intention of my post. Point is that this is the best evidence for "tampering" and as you pointed out, its garbage. unless there is better evidence for doctoring or tampering thats out there on the web as was claimed, this is what we got. The question I have is how do you build software that based on garbage?

Anyway, I'm glad I got you fired up.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Rob48

The Skipper guy has a pretty good list. So why do we need software when there is plenty to discuss here unless Jedi thinks these are all bunk.

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

i don't. i may not be certain about the exact link you've provided, but as i've said, there are plenty of examples online. still, it is hard to find one that links back directly to nasa servers, showing that it was nasa that tampered with the photo. i recall seeing some some time ago, but that proves nothing - i would have to find them. so it's a matter of whom you choose to believe, until one finds an image directly on nasa servers that has some part blurred.

that's what the software will be for. and i will rather write the software to check everything available from nasa, regardless if it'll prove that i am right or wrong, than google for something, hoping that it'll link back directly to nasa so that i can find a direct, undebatable proof of what i'm saying.

because opinions in this discussion are obviously not enough anymore. until we'll have some proof supporting one of the sides of this topic, we can throw our opinions at each other with no end.

because saying 'here are all photos from nasa, see, they were not tampered with' is not enough. there has to be a proof that they were not tampered with, just like there has to be a proof that they were tampered with, otherwise both options remain on the table as possibilities, because someone can be wrong.

opensourced software checking for blurred areas should be both easy to write (from scratch, i don't give a damn about bloated frameworks) and quite fast. it doesn't even need any 'sample data' - checking for relative loss of local contrast compared to the average in surrounding area should do the trick, and being opensourced means that everyone will be able to check how it works and that it works correctly. the latter will matter only if it won't find anything though, because if it will - the exact photo on nasa servers and coordinates will be a proof.

a reply to: jedi_hamster

So you will forgo existing current open source software and write your own open source software that does exactly the same thing?

you still will have to show what defines a doctored photo so you will still need an example of what that is and show how its different from a non doctored photo.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I always get fired up by people making claims that are patently garbage (not suggesting that is you).

Software comparing one digital image to another digital image to compare differences is fine, although the human eye is probably quicker and requires much less time writing code. The most sophisticated software in the world can only say "it looks like it may have been..." unless you have a before and after to use as comparators.

Original photos are better! It's always nice to show people claiming an online photo has been digitally altered an original that pre-dates digital photography by a couple of decades.

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Rob48

The Skipper guy has a pretty good list. So why do we need software when there is plenty to discuss here unless Jedi thinks these are all bunk.

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

opensourced software checking for blurred areas should be both easy to write (from scratch, i don't give a damn about bloated frameworks) and quite fast. it doesn't even need any 'sample data' - checking for relative loss of local contrast compared to the average in surrounding area should do the trick

Rubbish. What would that prove? I could find any number of photos that show a "relative loss of local contrast" but that doesn't mean they've been tampered with.

Reflections and lens flare would have that effect, and if you look at the Apollo photos there are lots that show out-of-focus dirt on windows and/or the lens, or defects on the film.

You'd have to do a lot better than that.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Software comparing one digital image to another digital image to compare differences is fine, although the human eye is probably quicker and requires much less time writing code. The most sophisticated software in the world can only say "it looks like it may have been..." unless you have a before and after to use as comparators.

Yeah, I think you are right. First there needs to be one clear example of this in the first place otherwise, its just circular logic. Its like saying "this is an example of a photo that's been tampered with as evidenced by my software I wrote to find tampered photos".

a reply to: Rob48

I could find any number of photos that show a "relative loss of local contrast"

Yeah, I think this is a little problematic.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Rob48

The Skipper guy has a pretty good list. So why do we need software when there is plenty to discuss here unless Jedi thinks these are all bunk.

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

Yeah, right, "DEMON EFFIGY ON MARS"! How about our good ol' friend pareidolia? How can you call an image a demon when such is the creation of the human mind? I'll admit that there are some curious "artifacts" seen on Martian photos but nothing is certain and could be 100% speculation BASED on pareidolia.

Uncertainty is what drives alleged anomalies, lunar, martian, universal.