Moon Squatters (Short Moon Anomaly Video)

a reply to: ArMaP

Oddly though my latest version of nasaview (3.18) while it opened the file, was still full of errors. Photoshop did fine. I'll try img2png later and compare the images.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

That's strange, that's the same version I have and I have no errors. Did you change that number on both fields, lines 7 and 81?

a reply to: ArMaP

Yeah did them both - I'm on windows, not sure if that matters.

I'll have another look when I get home

Managed to get it to work - I had that many .lbl files on my machine that I think I picked the wrong one. Here they are with a few compare and contrasts:

Top left is the LOIRP PDS image, as repaired with ArMap's revised .lbl file. Top right is the best version of the original scan. I have adjusted the levels on both images and sharped the original scan a little to try and get a bit more detail.

Bottom left is the LRO's best view, and bottom right Chandrayaan. I should point out the earlier image I posted from the LRO is from a different but very similar crater, apologies for the error. This one is correct.

One of the basic premises of the OP was that the new scan was missing, and that this was somehow suspicious. Turns out that it isn't missing at all - all it took was a little educated guesswork and the right tools for the job. I stand by my suggestion that the quality improvement in the re-scans is not that dramatic. Yes, they are sharper, yes there is less of the banding that dominates the originals, but not much more detail is actually revealed - it's just that the detail that is there is clearer. Everything you needed to see in the original was already available online before the LOIRP re-working of the images.

The other basic premise is that if you squint very hard you might see a few shadows that might look like a dog's face. They're actually rocks and shadows. Nothing more.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Yes, they are sharper, yes there is less of the banding that dominates the originals, but not much more detail is actually revealed - it's just that the detail that is there is clearer. Everything you needed to see in the original was already available online before the LOIRP re-working of the images.

The difference may be a result of scanning the images at 16 bits per pixel instead of the more common 8, as that gives more levels of grey to work with.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

opinions are like...

Thanks for showing the anomaly in all its glory you angry old man :p

and the image is still missing - and you are a liar.

a reply to: ArMaP

The image you posted was great - where is the official link for it please?

a reply to: trippy123

Here: pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov...

a reply to: trippy123

Could this be the location of the alien ship that the supposed Apollo 20 found the female body?

a reply to: MorpheusUSA

Sorry, but the whole 'Mona Lisa Apollo 20' thing is an absolutely fabricated crock:

onebigmonkey.com...

And Delporte crater has no space ship in it, see the bottom of this page:

onebigmonkey.com...

a reply to: trippy123

What anomaly?

a reply to: trippy123

I hadn't bothered with your response until oldcarpy replied to it.

No, it isn't missing, it's just not where think it should be. It is publicly available exactly where I said it was early in this thread and all it required was some thinking to make it visible.

I'm no liar, nor am I making shoddy videos claiming things are there when they aren't and spitting the dummy out when proved wrong.

I haven't bothered reporting you for breaching t&c's yet - would you like me to?

originally posted by: MorpheusUSA
a reply to: trippy123

Could this be the location of the alien ship that the supposed Apollo 20 found the female body?

Seeing as how the whole Apollo 20 thing was a hoax, the answer to your question is a "No":

Wiki: Apollo 20 Hoax

a reply to: oldcarpy

Oh you mean this.

Those images you are pointing too are fake, check out this video and then think again it's called disinformation and they do it all the time to discredit genuine investigation, these are GENUINE images of the artifact be it a natural structure or an actual object.


The fact is though that now someone will try to use later images which very well may have been retouched to try to deny it was ever there.

Then again it was suspiciously similar to this object which was either a very weird asteroid or possibly an ancient perhaps derelict vessel of probe of some kind.


Make no mistake about it I and other's see disinformation agent's and other cover up operatives as enemy's of humanity, they are most certainly by every definition enemy's of democracy as they seek to keep people blind to the truth and only a dictator would want that now wouldn't they.

And how far will they go to cover something up?.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Why, control and those that seek control are by there very nature enemy's of democracy as THEY seek the control not to give it to the people.

a reply to: MorpheusUSA

Still on the fence about that one - but if there's one thing up there why couldn't there be another. Ignorant people with huge ego's that lie and cover up for whatever reason don't understand the possibilities. Many more now do though.

a reply to: LABTECH767

a reply to: LABTECH767

Youtube is a trusted source for you? The Apollo 20 stuff about a derelict alien spaceship on the Moon was a hoax.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Then again it was suspiciously similar to this object which was either a very weird asteroid or possibly an ancient perhaps derelict vessel of probe of some kind.

Not very similar and there was a lot of stuff about Oumuamua put out in the public domain. I wanted it to be artificial as in Rama but sadly it wasn't.

That link of yours was to a discussion suggesting NASA might have nuked the Face on Mars to cover up the existence of aliens. You do realise that that is completely bonkers, don't you?

a reply to: LABTECH767

The one thing we can agree on there is that there was no Apollo 20, and that the claims of an alien space ship photographed by that mission are utterly fake, as you'd know if you'd read the links I posted earlier.

What is also not true, whether you agree with it or not, is that the Apollo 20 claims are somehow 'officially' brought out to discredit the UFO believers out there. The UFO movement is quite capable of discrediting itself, there is no need for NASA or anyone else to join in. The truth is that NASA doesn't care about what UFO believers think, they're busy looking at the genuinely amazing things on the moon. Pranksters selling books

www.amazon.com...=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0

are nothing to do with NASA, and people like them claiming all kinds of utter nonsense for youtube clicks and book sales are the real enemy of truth and knowledge not the spooks you think. Those people are the liars, not the people doing actual research.

There are no touched up photographs of the lunar surface hiding anything. You could watch a lot of youtube videos claiming to know the truth, or you could spend a day downloading Gb of Chinese data and making your own images:

You could even make 3D models:

www.dropbox.com...

(open the index.html file in Microsoft Edge or Firefox, Chrome doesn't work).

You can be as paranoid and suspicious as you like about the images, but it's a fact that there is no spaceship at that crater, never was.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Actually I am fully aware that there are home grown fakers and attention grabbers especially in the day's of youtube advertising revenue and click bait BUT I still hold that the anomaly is very interesting, it could indeed turn out to be just a natural geological image but I tend to think not despite your proffering of computer re-generated height mapped 3d rendering's of the scene and later as I point out quite validly potentially very iffy images of the site.

Those that capitalize it are doing it harm but to my mind this remain's a very interesting feature indeed.
And let's be fair it is VERY far from the only feature on the lunar surface to have met this attempt by many people to sarcastically take the high ground and deny that it is a feature of interest at all.

I mean let's be fair NASA has a track record here.




I mean look mate how thick do you think people are.
If I said these were on the moon or mars and you believed me you would claim they were natural features, dust devil track's and geological formations and go away nothing to see here - and these are far younger than the features we are looking at up there now are they not.