Alien Base Photographed By Japanese Moon Probe?!

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by euclid

 

What do you mean by low resolution, are you talking about the 10 metres per pixel ground resolution or about the size of the photo?

What I mean is that I can go to..... oh let's say an apollo mission site, of the MGS site or the clementine site. Then I can look at low, med, hi and RAW images saved in those archives. I can download them in multiple formats and some of them are HUGE like hundreds of MB TIFF images. I've got CUB files of the moon that are 1.8GB of data each! That is the raw data in the native file format that they use to convert to the other TIFF, GIF, JPEG images. That means that I have "high" resolution data. Then I can process them (i.e. analyze them) convert them myself into extremely high resolution TIFF images and play all I want too with them. The JAPanese images are crap, their website doesn't have any good high quality data for download/analysis. They suck.

Am I making sense now? Do you understand me? Am I writing a language you understand or is ESL to you?

-Euclid

[edit on 4-12-2007 by euclid]

[edit on 4-12-2007 by euclid]

reply to post by euclid


OK, I understand it.

But having a huge image does not mean that it has a better resolution.

If you have a 1.8GB file that shows 20 metres for each pixel then that is the best you can get, unless you apply some of those wavelet filters that can create detail from their analysis of the image.

But you can also have a 200KB file that shows part of the same place with a resolution of 10 metres per pixel that shows details that are not visible on the bigger image.

To me, the image with the best resolution is the smaller one because you can see a 10 metres object (if it has a good contrast with the background) while in the other image you can only see a 20 metres object.

Bigger resolutions mean only that you have a greater possibility of distinguishing image details.

And yes, you are writing a language that I do understand, although I sometimes have some problems because I learned it by myself watching TV and movies, so written English is more of a challenge to me.

And I only asked because I thought that you were using a wrong definition for resolution.

Originally posted by tep200377
I would say that your research gets an F- for failing to grasp reality.

I have noticed lately that there are a lot of self proclaimed defenders, protectors, and such, of sanity, who strangely enough bear the same trademarks of defining reality for the rest of us.

I believe it is a new twist on the organized debunking cult. And when you challenge them, suddenly they have PHds and know the highest ranking people in such and such agency.

Well, Mike and I go back a ways and we don't scare easy. There is an entire network of people on this forum who have histories together, and who have seen every kind come and go.

So I would take an honest inventory and do some real research before I started calling someone a nutjob if I were you.

I think David Darling said it best when commenting on Richard C. Hoaglands theory of Iapteus, "Richard's built a marvelous castle of imagination on somewhat shaky foundations". I believe this applies perfectly to the moon base theorists. Humans are pattern recognition machines. We look for meaning in chaos and if we don't find it, our imaginations create it.

[edit on 5/12/07 by InfaRedMan]

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by euclid

 

Bigger resolutions mean only that you have a greater possibility of distinguishing image details.

Good.... we understand each other.

And being able to distinguish image details is the whole point of analysis.

Additionally having more data in the image file allows you to enlarge it. I have a large format printer and sometimes I like to print stuff out 33" by 40" to examine it in detail.... you can't do something like that and see any detail at all with those useless JAPanese images. Their resolution is a measly 72 pixels per inch... that's the resolution of the image regardless of the actual area imaged by the camera.

The JAPanese should probably stick to making cars, watches and calculators because their space tech needs some serious reconsideration/redesign.

-Euclid

[edit on 5-12-2007 by euclid]

Originally posted by Matyas
I have noticed lately that there are a lot of self proclaimed defenders, protectors, and such, of sanity, who strangely enough bear the same trademarks of defining reality for the rest of us.

And we have noticed that there are a lot of self proclaimed experts on lunar alien activity. People who claims that there is a big soul catcher on the moon, and that the whole moon is placed in earths orbit by aliens. Why don't you raise your eyebrows when that is said? No ... you make fun of people who actually has their feet firmly placed on the ground asking for better facts and images, rather than looking at Fred and Wilma Flintstones on the moon.

I believe it is a new twist on the organized debunking cult. And when you challenge them, suddenly they have PHds and know the highest ranking people in such and such agency.

Where on earth does anyone in this thread, or in an other thread claim to have PHD's in anything when it comes to debunking? If there is anyone who shouldn't talk about "know the highest ranking people" it is you conspiracy theorists who in EVERY case has a "source" in NASA or whatever agency you refer to.

Well, Mike and I go back a ways and we don't scare easy. There is an entire network of people on this forum who have histories together, and who have seen every kind come and go.

There is an entire network of sane people on this planet who also "go way back" who has better ting to do than trying to get you lunar conspiracy feet firmly back on planet earth.

When it comes to those who left .. well, I cant answer for them. But when it comes to my place in this forum, then I can tell you that I am here to stay. But its hard to discuss these topics with people who denys reality... It really is hard ..

One of our main problems is that you never answer our questions. The questions that makes the fiction dissolve.

So I would take an honest inventory and do some real research before I started calling someone a nutjob if I were you.

I never called mikesingh a nutjob, I called the person in his reference a nutjob. Big difference. And before you take more "honest inventories", please look at some of the videos from the same youtube poster in the OP.


[edit on 5-12-2007 by tep200377]

reply to post by euclid


Keep in mind that the images in this OP is from the new lunar video, and not "hd images" from a digital camera.

If you look at the video before it "arrives" at the OP images destination, you clearly see that there is no anomalies.. Its just shadows from craters and its all taken out of context.

Well, I have completely given up on trying to find an image of sufficient resolution to analyze to see if I can find any structural symmetry. I can't deduce from the data provided if these particular "things" are any thing other than rocks, hills and other natural formations.

If someone can direct me to some HI-RES images of the area in question I'll check them out.

-Euclid

Ok, when I first learned about bases on the moon with John Lear on C2C I was excited and it opened my eyes to what is going on, I was telling anyone who would listen. Ironically, after coming to ATS I have become more skeptical and am beginning to be closed minded from this sort of fantasy.

The image was filmed from 100 km? And the guy can see buildings and space ships?? Does he have any idea how high 100 kms is? So what then? Giant 50 km tall fragile rock muppets must be responsible. The guy talking in the vid sounds familiar to someone who posts on YT. Maybe the same guy who saw a colossal sized frozen space crab on some other moon. (forgot the name).

I'm done telling anyone about this stuff and time to go back to sleep!

Darn! I agree the vid's resolution sucks! I've written to this guy, Dave Beamer, to send some better resolution images. But I doubt he's going to do that. He wouldn't want us to see that 'Moon base' is actually nothing but natural geological formations, would he?

Cheers!

Originally posted by tep200377

And we have noticed that there are a lot of self proclaimed experts on lunar alien activity.

Show me where the proclamation of expert is whenever a simple inquiry is made into the pablum we have been fed for so long. And I have never backed so called alien activity, but seeing the amount of negative attention it generates I am having serious reconsiderations.

People who claims that there is a big soul catcher on the moon,

How many people, and do you have any idea what a soul catcher is (because I sure as hell don't) other than what it means to the one who claims it?

and that the whole moon is placed in earths orbit by aliens.

And how do you know it wasn't? Can you give me an explanation as to why the Moon is so much older than the solar system? And why does any life beyond our sphere have to be alien? Isn't that like calling Native Americans savages? Is not humanity a universal value?

Why don't you raise your eyebrows when that is said?

And how do you know if I do or don't? I am more prone to raise them when so called reality is not questioned, especially your kind.

No ... you make fun of people who actually has their feet firmly placed on the ground asking for better facts and images, rather than looking at Fred and Wilma Flintstones on the moon.

If you think I am making fun of you then you must be self conscious. I know I would be with my head planted firmly in the sand while my arse remained the highest part of my body for all to see. What is good for the gander is good for the goose.

Where on earth does anyone in this thread, or in an other thread claim to have PHD's in anything when it comes to debunking?

If you are organized then you know who you are. I don't need to answer that. If there is any ratting to be done, you'll be the one doing it.

If there is anyone who shouldn't talk about "know the highest ranking people" it is you conspiracy theorists who in EVERY case has a "source" in NASA or whatever agency you refer to.

I believe the real "highest ranking people" do not want to be associated with mere "conspiracy theorists". But those who seek answers to old lies eventually find their way to these "highest ranking people", while the debunkers use the empty threat of "highest ranking people" to color the honest researcher as a "conspiracy theorist".

There is an entire network of sane people on this planet

And by elimination, everyone else is insane. Heard that before.

who also "go way back" who has better ting to do than trying to get you lunar conspiracy feet firmly back on planet earth.

So now you are doing a great deed for your fellow man. Now, just why would it be so imperative to change this recent deviation from the norm back to its original state? Why would whatever anyone believes about the Moon have any impact on your life?

When it comes to those who left .. well, I cant answer for them. But when it comes to my place in this forum, then I can tell you that I am here to stay. But its hard to discuss these topics with people who denys reality... It really is hard ..

I couldn't care less if you come or go. But what you are talking about is reasoning with fanatics. I don't believe people who question old ideas, outdated ideas, and outright lies qualify as fanatics. But you cannot force your perception of reality on others and expect them to bend over and take it. I don't take 80% of what comes out of here as gospel truth anyway, and as for the rest that I do, I came to those conclusions based upon my own powers of reason, not because so and so told me to think that way.

One of our main problems is that you never answer our questions. The questions that makes the fiction dissolve.

On occasion we have, but when we offer evidence contrary to your thesis you cannot be bothered to pursue it. As so, my new policy of late is not to include sources, and wait for the debunker to do the legwork.

I never called mikesingh a nutjob, I called the person in his reference a nutjob. Big difference.

O-K, you are correct. Just a troll. I guess that's permissible by your standards. I got caught up in the heat of the debate. See, it is possible to reason with us....

And before you take more "honest inventories", please look at some of the videos from the same youtube poster in the OP.

Providing of course the youtube poster is not getting their information from yet another source?

Personally at this point in time I am not convinced that the Japanese HDTV 'footage' is real... Considering that a letter sent to ask got the response that save for a few 'samples' they don't plan to show us anything for two years...

(Posted by Internos in the Kayuga thread...Or will be soon)

So there seems little point in looking for anomalies until we can verify that these are in fact true images... Just look at the snaffu with the one image the Chinese revealed that is an almost exact duplicate of an older NASA image...(still not sure which one) but the Chinese did a big press conference to all the major networks saying "No we not fake image its real... see the new crater"

Only the new crater is an error of alignment of the 19 composite strips and when realigned properly the 'new crater' vanishes...

So what are the odds that their satellite took an image in the exact same orbit, the exact same area and shows the exact same cropping as the NASA image....

It is our guess there is some really big game afoot and it may be possible that NASA double crossed the Chinese LOL

Its interesting how quickly the 'fake China image' made the rounds of the websites...

Its more interesting at the media response which puts this issue into mainstream media for the first time Even Fox news used the term "Photoshoped"

Although almost all the features of the two images match, the Chinese image does shows an additional small crater overlapping a larger one near the middle of the photo.

Such an addition could have been Photoshopped in....

Fox News

Its going to be EXTREMELY interesting as this drama unfolds... but guess what... all the Chines press is put us 'nutjobs' into mainstream News and for the first time (maybe because its China and not NASA in the 'hot seat') the news is believing it

Champagne anyone?

reply to post by zorgon

Here is it

(my mail in-box

)

Dear [Internos

],

Thank you for your message. About KAGUYA product, we plan to open all KAGUYA products one year after the end of nominal operation (two year after the launch). Before that, we only posted sample images visualized from KAGUYA products on the Web because we have to protect our mission instrument teams right to study in prior to other scientists (first
author right).

Thank you for your understanding.

Best regards,
Shin-ichi Sobue

in their FAQ page, their explanation has been provided in this way:

Q: What is the data release plan for KAGUYA?

A: One year after the end of the nominal operation phase (about two years after the launch), all KAGUYA products will be opened for public access online. During this one year data study period for instrument teams’ data research and validation / verification, sample data will be posted on the homepage for public outreach.

reply to post by zorgon


reply to post by internos


That's what I've been saying all along!! Does anyone ever read my nutjob posts?? What I've been trying to get across is that there is much more than meets the eye. Everyone - US of A, Russia, China, India, Japan are all on the bandwagon together. There's an understanding between all of them regarding publication of Moon photos.

Probably the top secret directive reads:

"All Moon images/videos will be thoroughly scrutinized by respective authorized imaging labs for anomalies that cannot be included within the paradigm of natural explanations including indigenous natural terrain configurations or natural geological formations that form part of mainstream explanations as they pertain to Earth.

All such images/videos that fall in the anomalous category that do not conform to such explanations as brought out in para ---, above, will be sent to the office of the Central Image Processing Lab at --------- by special means on completion of preliminary study in accordance with Section 5(a)II of ---------- (Hereinafter referred to as the M-MANUAL).

All such imagery/videgraphy will be stamped Above Top Secret For Eyes Only. No part of such imagery shall be open to public scrutiny or public disclosure and will be excluded from any scrutiny whatsoever under the Right To Information Act.

Etc….Etc…”

Now do you guys get the point? The bottom line is we’ll continue to be screwed till kingdom come!

Frustrating to go on a wild goose chase, what? Anyway, have a nice day!

Cheers!

reply to post by zorgon


When NASA have been taking thousands of pictures of the lunar surface, it wouldn't surprise me that china has 1 picture that is of the same area as the NASA images ..

Such an addition could have been Photoshopped in, but it's also clear that the sun's rays are hitting the lunar surface at different angles in each image. It would be fairly difficult to rotate every single shadow in the NASA image to match the orientation of the Chinese photo.

It's wery important that last sentence.

Only the new crater is an error of alignment of the 19 composite strips and when realigned properly the 'new crater' vanishes...

Do you have any sources for this? .. I love to see how that worked out ..

reply to post by zorgon

So what are the odds that their satellite took an image in the exact same orbit, the exact same area and shows the exact same cropping as the NASA image....

I was under the impression that this photo was cropped from a larger photo, and the orbit is not at all 100% the same, as the shadows indicate.

But interesting to note, that you guys suddenly seem to think that stitching together photo strips from multiple passes could produce artifacts, after blasting us "skeptics" for years whenever we suggest that some of your absurd observations could easily be explained by such.

But I will say this, at the moment I have no reason to believe that China have anything orbiting the moon taking pictures. If they wanted to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they do, then it would be nothing more than a few mouse clicks for them to do so. The fact that they have not speaks volumes.

Damn, talk about taking both side of an issue, lol.

reply to post by zorgon
It is interesting to note that when you write, email or call some one from NASA for example [Mary Ann Hagen--Regional Planetary Image Facility and Kyoko Fukuda from Public Affairs Dept. JAXA] you get the same response "All images , photos, and videos wiil available in a two year time frame.

"Coinsidence"



Like I commented to a friend of mine a while back, "what a load of manure"
How long are they going to take on planning drama on keeping us in the dark???

Here is a couple "MySpace" image links before a video camera was used to capture the Kaguya satellite freeze frame photo for You Tube. Thanks "Above Top Secret" forum for having an honest look at my Alien Base find near the North Pole area of our Moon.

*snip*

P.S. I will send all who ask better resolution zooms of these alien bases in reply to just asking, "Dave can I have some JPEGs?".
Write to:

*Snip*



Personal information removed.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
Please do not post your own personal information. You should be aware that any personally identifiable information you submit here can be read, collected, or used by other users of these forums, and could be used to send you unsolicited messages. We are not responsible for the personally identifiable information you choose to submit, and may remove it at our discretion.



[edit on February 20th 2010 by greeneyedleo]

reply to post by mikesingh


Why not develop and launch a miniature rocket capable of penetrating the atmospheres of Earth into outer space. On board in the nose cone a micro digital camera could be installed and coordinates preprogrammed into the correctable trajectory nose cone to orbit the Earth's Moon. We are not talking a huge payload just a micro transmittable shielded digital camera that can take pictures of the Moon. There has to be scientists in the world capable of pulling this off.

One of the many problems other then funding could be transmitting and receiving the signal before it was jammed or diverted by you know who. Any input to whether anyone thinks this to be plausible. Rik Riley





[edit on 15-3-2008 by rikriley]

reply to post by rikriley


That is not much different from what has been done.

Even with a very small payload, a rocket can not be too small because it needs to have enough fuel to make its payload reach its destiny.

Also, the camera, radio transmitter and other equipment that would be needed must be made to withstand the harsh environment (large temperature changes, lack of protection against radiation, etc.).

All those things make the minimum payload larger than it could be if it was to be used in the same conditions as those we have on Earth.

But something like that was already made, the Clementine mission was made with the idea of using common components to be cheaper and to gauge the feasibility of such a project, this if I am not mistaken, my memory sometimes fails me.