Strange Area In Photograph

a reply to: lunarrover

Your dishonesty is astounding. You post low resolution images making ridiculous claims about them, get high resolution sources in return that you dismiss and then deliberately misrepresent the content of them in attempt to divert attention from the failings of your own 'evidence'. It's almost as if you've deliberately manipulated an image I posted to try and make it look terrible to hide how bad your own source image is.

It seems to me as though you took a tiny corner of one of the images:

reduced the dpi to 72, and then massively increased the image size so that it would look really poor. Here's the two of them side by side:

But deliberately manipulating images to obscure detail is wrong isn't it, because that's what you are accusing everyone else is doing so surely you wouldn't have done that?

For your information, the QGIS package plugin that makes the 3D models from which I saved a png file reduces the quality of the output relative to the source image and they are still better than the one you posted in your OP. You can download the 1Gb 7m resolution original image yourself, along with all the other source images I've posted. Here's where you can get them all the raw images I've been posting:

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...

moon.bao.ac.cn...

darts.isas.jaxa.jp...

Download the images, present us with proof they are faked. Prove there is a pipeline there.

This, by way of illustration, is the same area in the OP image:

Compared with the Chang'e-2 original from which I constucted the 3D model:

Want to lecture anyone about low res again?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

I am going to reject what you say because we are not offering anything new except image pong. Not saying your images stink which they do. But you post a pic I return it with a red X through it and an explanation then I do the same.... then you put a red X through it adnausium..... It's pointless to proceed in this way. I am not buying anything you say because I feel the material you present is flawed and it is being done on purpose. That's not to say I have not listened to what you have said, I just wholeheartedly do not agree with it.

a reply to: lunarrover

BTW I have not said once I can prove a pipe line is there. I just said it looks like one, and as I have said from the start this is what I think. It does not have to be what anybody else thinks.

It is however for people like you and others to go and see for yourselves and if you do that and then still think what I have said is hogwash that is fine too.

The reason I am not agreeing with you is because you have not offered any solid proof that all the evidence I have presented in this thread is utter tripe??? Yes it is open to interpretation and yes you are entitled to disagree with me.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
This, by way of illustration, is the same area in the OP image:

Want to lecture anyone about low res again?

Yes because you are being disingenuous.

I've set the area in question to be my avatar backdrop

originally posted by: lunarrover
The reason I am not agreeing with you is because you have not offered any solid proof that all the evidence I have presented in this thread is utter tripe???

It looks like a good opportunity for you to put in one post all the evidence you have posted in this thread, so it makes it easier to understand and discuss.

a reply to: ArMaP

Great idea. Will do that

Except I don't trust this approach tbh as images can be purged from the public domain so I am going to have to leave it where it is.

One of the things you can do in GIS packages is superimposed one layer on top of another by matching reference points. It's called georectification, but I guess here it ought to be selenorectification. What happens when you rectify the OP's view of the alleged pipeline on top of the JAXA Kaguya DEM and orthographic images to make a 3D model.

You get this:

In the background you can see the original Kaguya layer where there hasn't been enough overlap.

In case you don't think the image could possibly match, here is the OP image sitting on top of the Kaguya one after the rectification process:

Despite the lack of detail it is very obviously the same land masses and features as all the other 3D images I've posted, and not a pipeline in sight anywhere.

a reply to: lunarrover

Disingenuous is when you deliberately manipulate an image to make it show less detail than is there and then try and claim it isn't good enough compared to yours, particularly when yours shows nothing at all when zoomed into the same level. Prove me wrong - show me the same area in your image showing the same amount of detail as the one I produced.

Disingenuous is when you claim that all you said was "it looks like a pipeline", when in fact you gave a detailed description of what you though it was and its component parts, along with claiming the existence of glass domes all over the shop.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Smythii is on the left, to the bottom in the south is the biosphere which supports life. it is different to the one at Mare Orientalis, the one at that location is possibly a solar power source or heater, cant think what else it would be used for? The Humboldt ones are impressive, it is the huge scale of them.

Incredible isn't it to think that a type 3 civilisation is orbiting our planet incognito studying us.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

youtu.be...

a reply to: lunarrover

"Type 3 civilization"

sigh. If you're going to spout things, at least learn about them first:

Kardashev Scale

A Type 3 civilization controls the energy output of a entire galaxy. With that type of technology, you'd never know they were there.

No mater how good you seem to think you are at manipulating digital images.

They would simply be "cloaked" and you could look, and look all you want, and you'd never see them if they didn't want to be seen.

There is also absolutely NO evidence of a Type 3 civilization in the Milky Way.....which would involve Dyson Swarms and stars being moved around in ways that defy orbital mechanics.

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

Most dummies dont see them.

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

Also to get that far as a civilisatio you probably don't want to kill the denizens who live in a specific galaxy.

Harnessing the power of a moon and sticking it in earth orbit is quite an achievement.

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

Why do you think NASA used infra red cameras onboard the shuttles to film them all in flight around our planet ?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Can you do that flashing thing with these three images for me please mate that looks wicked bruv

files.abovetopsecret.com...

files.abovetopsecret.com...

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Would ya?

Be a pal

Here is an interesting dichotomy.

Photo analyst required, must have a keen eye and impeccable attention to detail, must have the ability to understand illusory con tricks and ensure continuity at all costs, if not have a basic conceptual understanding of now you see me then you dont?

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

spaceflight.nasa.gov...



Cheers Stan, they want their money back, can't say I blame them.

a reply to: lunarrover

Understanding that people that want to promote their point of view sometimes change the evidence to fit what they say is also needed.

In this case, the sentence "Backgrounds match exactly" is a lie, as anyone can see in the animation below.



As we see a perspective change it means that the photos were not taken from the same position.

a reply to: ArMaP

Is that enough of a shift for it not to be in the image ? just a bit?
the images I posted came from a national news