John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

Had to laugh when I read those notes from Bob

One thing John, and you'll be very aware of this. That in interpreting any picture taken, you have to be careful in saying what you think is there. The human brain is a wizard for seeing patterns in things where there is in fact nothing there. The problem with interpreting features within a crater such as Copernicus is that you have a very complex and jumbled terrain to look at, along with many instances of shadow and light in various orientations. To really be definitive about whatever you looking at, it's best to get multiple passes of an area under different conditions of illumination. It's especially important where the resolution of the pictures taken isn't so great, as it is in many lunar photos. Even though they were in orbit there, the cameras in those days weren't the best so far as image resolution goes. So that's why you're getting photos whose appearence is blurry. Having had quite a bit of experience in using aerial photgraphs and satellite imagery (being a geologist), the most important thing I can say is "don't trust what you see". You really need multiple levels of confirmation to really be sure about the objects you're looking at. It's all too easy to get something simple as the height of a tree in a photo wrong, just because you have no idea of the scale length of it's shadow or the correct illumination angle and flightpath taken by the picture taking craft.

And that, my friends, is why you cannot trust your eyes when it comes to judging whether something is or is not there.

TheBorg

maybe this is it - I dunno..
Must be a better resolution somwhere..

[edit on 18-9-2006 by Ram]

Ram:

I just see a couple of shadows there. I see nothing of any significance whatsoever. I don't know what anyone sees in these pics that makes them so important. If someone could elaborate a bit, it'd be much appreciated.

TheBorg

Originally posted by TheBorg

Ram:

I just see a couple of shadows there. I see nothing of any significance whatsoever. I don't know what anyone sees in these pics that makes them so important. If someone could elaborate a bit, it'd be much appreciated.

TheBorg

Thats the 'box'. As far as what anyone sees that makes it so important I can tell you that Bob Lazar, our resident arch sceptic, would not have tried to negotiate his life back for a couple of shadows if he could have possibly weaseled his way out of it. And especially not to John Lear who he considers 'crazy'. Oh, and if you didn't like this one, you won't like the others!

Originally posted by Ram

maybe this is it - I dunno..
Must be a better resolution somwhere.

Ram, please tell the folks where you the 'box'. Thanks.

The crop posted above appears to be in a very poor resolution. We need someone to crop that from the Highest Quality "Huge File" image located in the original post of this thread.

I assure you in the highest resolution it looks alot clearer than this crop does.

Springer...

[edit on 9-18-2006 by Springer]

Which image is that from? I have the high-res originals on my hard drive.

Personally, I think this is a better crate:




It's at 1.30pm to the box indicated above.

Cheers

JS

[edit on 18-9-2006 by jumpspace]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Which image is that from? I have the high-res originals on my hard drive.

So do I, and it's much clearer if you zoom in slowly, it's on image number 2.

Check your email, I sent it to you with the object "circled with dots".

Springer...

[edit on 9-18-2006 by Springer]

This part caught my eye.

We appear to have two parallel shadows with remarkably straight edges, despite what is obviously a rolling terrain under them.

(And a great big object that looks a bit like a capital "J" on the side of the hill.)



I added some white lines to indicate what appears to be the contour of the terrain.

Ok... but if you look in your pic right there, off to the right of your red box, there are a bunch of examples like that... just shadows of the ridges, that's all.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

This part caught my eye.

We appear to have two parallel shadows with remarkably straight edges, despite what is obviously a rolling terrain under them.

(And a great big object that looks a bit like a capital "J" on the side of the hill.)

Hmmmm. And I wonder what those white triangle-shaped objects are just above?

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

This part caught my eye.

We appear to have two parallel shadows with remarkably straight edges, despite what is obviously a rolling terrain under them.

(And a great big object that looks a bit like a capital "J" on the side of the hill.)

Hmmmm. And I wonder what those white triangle-shaped objects are just above?

Its not a triangle. Its the forehead and nose. Cant you see the face?

[edit on 18-9-2006 by merka]

Originally posted by Ram
[image snip]
maybe this is it - I dunno..
Must be a better resolution somwhere..

[edit on 18-9-2006 by Ram]

Found the box last night but was too tired to post.

Its located at 1180, 440.

Just a note, there were 2 objects in the region.
The 1st in the upper left hand corner is the moon apple crate.
The 2nd in the bottom right hand corner appears to be a fault in the image itself.



[edit on 18-9-2006 by Xabora]

Originally posted by Xabora

The 1st in the upper left hand corner is the moon apple crate.

Looks like a box but is not 'the' box.

I only have one problem with the crate. The light in the picture is coming from the right to the left. You can see this in the hills and such. The crate literally needs to be horizontally inverted to be the right way.

So what do we think this 'box' could possibly be?

Any ideas?

Found it... seems like there are many that are different sizes.
Its located at 1228, 780.


Was looking for a small box, nothing that big.


I used artificial colors on the 1st image to bring out the details.
And on the second image illuminated all the dark spots which darkened the bright areas.


[edit on 18-9-2006 by Xabora]

No. That kind of speculation would be a waste of time.

Leave it to the likes of JP Skipper and the aquatic parks.

[edit on 18/9/06 by SteveR]