Strange Area In Photograph

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

It just looks too unnatural the way you have created it? It looks like cgi but 1970's becuase it looks too prestine and well err sort of fake.

I appreciate what you have done here but it looks like computer modelling from the 70's.

Synthetic pathetic even.

Sorry mate I don't think this is real.

originally posted by: lunarrover
All differ in quality.

Could you be more specific? In this case, how do you measure "quality"? Is it something objective or subjective?

a reply to: ArMaP

Really?

An 8 bit grey scale to full HD is a measure of quality.

As a a 56k jpeg v a 10GB tiff as long as it is not a 10GB version of an 56k tiff which is also a con trick used.

OneBigMonkeyToo and ArMaP might as well give up, this "person" will not believe anything except actually going there to see for themselves. Even if this was on the side facing us and they could view it directly through a telescope, they would claim the image was whitewashed by the telescope manufacturer. Have run into a number of people like this unfortunately and learned it is best just to say "Uhhuh ... whatever" and walk away.

P.S. Worked in IT for 37 years and I would not want to work with this guy ever!

a reply to: Wolfie0827
Which equates to.......somebody is questioning the lies they have been fed and the feeble attempts to silence him have not worked. I can further browbeat him by saying I have worked in IT for 37 years etc.

My answer to that is... Whatever......

Quality is subjective, I like to set the bar high. So with that in mind I'd like to share a quality image which is fantastic.

Accept no fake or cheap imitations.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Co-ordinates of the last image as follows.........

The Moon

a reply to: Wolfie0827

Sadly yes. The OP isn't interested in actual discussion, but is instead looking for a echo chamber.

We've seen this here on ATS many times over with other posters making the same claims of things on the Moon (or Mars). The signs are all there:

1) Ignore any conflicting evidence.
2) Declare anything else posted by any other member as "FAKE!" or "LIES!"
3) Over post processing of images (which of course introduces artificial artifacts in images), insisting that they are "revealing things".
4) Will insult or become aggressive towards other members that disagree with them.

We've seen it many times over with other people....who tend to not last that long here. They start a thread, people get interested...then as the 4 different things I just listed above happen, people drop out of the thread as they realize the OP is just wanting an echo chamber, so the amount of other posters drops quickly.

Worse: when they create new threads, most on here will go: "Oh...that guy. Waste of time." and move on.

Except for a few that will stick around and try to argue with them (which really is a waste of energy IMHO) as there are much more credible threads and discussions, who's thread creators tend to be a bit more reasonable and will actually discuss things in a much more civilized and intelligent manner.

I've seen for years how bullies have attacked people and send in the same clowns if there is any sniff of any semblance of truth. Then they are bombarded with complete garbage and browbeaten in to submission.

As I have said from the start if you are going to try and con me expect to be called out on it.

Woe betide anyone who goes against the mono thought clique brigade.

Any response unless submissive will be attacked and shutdown and its author chased off in the name of...

Meh!

originally posted by: lunarrover
Really?

Yes, really, definitions are important.

An 8 bit grey scale to full HD is a measure of quality.

No, 8 bit greyscale is a characteristic, full HD (image size) is another.

As a a 56k jpeg v a 10GB tiff as long as it is not a 10GB version of an 56k tiff which is also a con trick used.

A TIFF can have JPEG compression too, and a bigger image doesn't mean a better image. Resizing smaller images to bigger sizes (usually with resampling) is something very common, as we can see in this thread, several people (including yourself) posted resized images.

a reply to: Wolfie0827

I never give up in cases like this because I think of the people reading the thread but that do not post. Even if the other side of the discussion doesn't want to learn it's possible that some of those reading learn something about the topic.

originally posted by: lunarrover
Quality is subjective, I like to set the bar high. So with that in mind I'd like to share a quality image which is fantastic.

Quality is somewhat subjective, I agree with that, I just wanted to know what do you think helps an image have better quality than others?

Accept no fake or cheap imitations.

I accept them, but for other purposes.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

That image was most likely resized, we can see that it looks slightly blurred, resulting from the resizing and resampling of the image. It also has too much contrast, which usually reduces the number of colours/shades of grey of the original image.

a reply to: ArMaP

One thing is NASA use Photoshop, there is inconsistency between the way images look between all the different orgs that hold images is obvious. Layovers were used in the early days but now things have developed in terms of technology they use computers.

originally posted by: lunarrover
a reply to: ArMaP

One thing is NASA use Photoshop, there is inconsistency between the way images look between all the different orgs that hold images is obvious. Layovers were used in the early days but now things have developed in terms of technology they use computers.

NASA did not use Photoshop when the photographs were taken. NASA did not use Photoshop until well after 1990, nobody did. The fact is that Photoshop is the industry standard for preparing images for the web and publication. It does not mean that anything has been added or removed. Lots of people use Photoshop. All the images I have posted in this thread have been through Photoshop. It does not prove that they have been faked, it's just another empty claim from you. For once I agree with you, there is a great deal of inconsistency between websites in how they present the information but that depends on the aim of the site concerned. The LPI site you keep borrowing and then manipulating images from clearly states that their images are not intended for detailed research and also hosts higher resolution versions of the photographs you keep messing with, higher resolution photographs you choose not to use. They also state quite clearly how their images have been treated.

The ASU, on the other hand, is definitely aiming at serious research and hosts raw, unprocessed high quality TIFF images. They also detail how those images have been treated. The Planetary Data System is another source of lunar imagery and holds large numbers of raw images from a number of sources and again details how those images have been treated. The ASU hosts LRO images and again is quite clear on how those images are processed. Likewise India, China and Japan all detail exactly how their images have been dealt with and allow access to large and unprocessed images.

You, on the other hand, want to stick with low resolution sources because it allows you to squint at them with your glasses of and see fairy castles.

Earlier you said this:

It just looks too unnatural the way you have created it? It looks like cgi but 1970's becuase it looks too prestine and well err sort of fake. I appreciate what you have done here but it looks like computer modelling from the 70's. Synthetic pathetic even. Sorry mate I don't think this is real.

I don't care what you think or believe. I care about what you can demonstrate to be true. If you can get the same images from the same sources and treat them in the same way but show something different you are welcome to do so. Prove me wrong. So far you have claimed you can prove your case but have made no effort whatsoever to do so.

You claim to be interested in high quality images but reject the high quality images out there in favour of poor quality ones. You whine about brow-beating and bullying and say you will call people out for trying to con you, well that's exactly what I'm doing: calling you out because you're trying to con people. You're trying to con people into thinking you have expertise and experience and you very obviously do not and that you can identify artificial structures that just aren't there. Pointing out where you've got it wrong is not bullying. Bitching about bullying and inferring that people are being "sent in" to try and suppress is just another form of deflection and gatekeeping.

One poster suggested that I may as well give up on this as it's a waste of time. I agree it's a waste of time trying to get you to acknowledge that you've got it wrong, or to admit that you have no proof of any of your claims, or to get you post your sources and your methods, but there may be well be people reading this thread who might fall for BS if it wasn't for people prepared to put the effort in to deny ignorance and stand up for honesty. You can try and pull the wool over people's eyes all you like, but someone needs to point out where you're wrong and being deceptive.

You've posted a couple of photos and simply said "these are amazing". That's all you need to do. There is no need to try an fabricate nonsense to make them any more amazing. Have some photographs of the area you picked on, first Apollo 15's Metric Mapping Camera from the 1.2 Gb raw TIFF image hosted by the ASU:

and now two 3D views from Chang'e-2 constructed from a 2.2 Gb DEM file, and two 1 Gb images:

Where's the pipeline?

Don't bother with any kind of reply that simply says "gee it kinda looks funny" or "it must be fake". Do what you said you were going to do and prove that they are not showing what I'm saying that they are.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

I know they did not use it in the 60s and 70s they used layovers aka the Disney trick

If a picture paints a thousand words then why can't I paint you?

I have a theory of what NASA have done, told you why I believe that so with that knowledge go and look, If you think wrong that is fine too The way you ignore the blocks in the centre of crookes etc says it all. The pipeline is just a basic little thing because to me it resembles a pipe? If I am alone in that fine. There are lots of strange sort of weaved structures and other weirdness that warrants further study IMO.

If you can't see anything and think snow covered images are where it's at fine. Your hostility also goes some way to convince me that I am barking up the right tree

I have got an amazing catalogue of anomalies from the OP that is helping move me further to exposing the truth which I am incredibly excited about.

Its all good my man

OBMT

So glad you have omitted to include that image you took from the bottom of a fish pool at night in the last montage you posted, well done.

originally posted by: lunarrover
One thing is NASA use Photoshop, there is inconsistency between the way images look between all the different orgs that hold images is obvious.

I'm sure NASA uses Photoshop somewhere, and I agree that there is a lot of inconsistency in image quality/style across the many organisations. I even saw, in three different occasions, images that were clearly altered for publicity purposes. But I also know that I have never seen an image that looks altered in any way on the science related sites.

Layovers were used in the early days but now things have developed in terms of technology they use computers.

I doubt it, manual alteration of the photos (either negatives or positives) has been done by hand for ever, I have seen my sister doing it many times, you just paint with a small brush the areas you want to turn darker or you scrape the emulsion from the areas you want to turn whiter.

originally posted by: lunarrover

If a picture paints a thousand words then why can't I paint you?

Try to say that with a picture.

a reply to: ArMaP

The results are in and after downloading with minimal attempts to resize the image OBMT posted broke apart with the most augmented jpeg artefacts I have ever had the misfortune to manipulate. The pictures he gave as examples of high res data are some of the worst I have ever encountered. Shocking behaviour. ArMap, the image I have just taken a look at defies all logic.

files.abovetopsecret.com...