Lunar Sightings Research Images

Initially, I was afraid of posting my research of what appear to be intentional structural design and organic shape-forms existing on the Moon prior to, and during the Apollo missions on ATS because of so many off-topic, personal attack, 'equalizer', misinformation/disinformation, or just plain disgust and irritation, Hoagland or Anti-Hoagland comments that ultimately lead a visitor astray of what the post was about in the first place - but I have decided to take a chance now that my first book (with hundreds of these images) is nearly ready for print.

First, I'd like to offer to the reader that I am sane, that I'm a professional graphic designer, and that my collection of these images are scrutinized to the Nth degree before being included in the book. As an example, I offer this reality-based appraisal of an object of interest located in the Antarctic.

Next I would like to offer the following image (see below). Sorry - I'm not going to reveal the original image number that it came from nor will I cite the official archive source at this time. This is merely a test to see if anyone out there is willing to stay on topic and rate this image, in the way it's presented, which I believe is evidence of intentional design (form follows function - of what function, who knows).

Based on the application of my criteria and having researched with a critical eye hundreds of official archive photographs (from multiple archive sources, in various formats) for literally 1000+ hours these last 4 months, I would rank the objects in the image below (specifically, the series of spheres and concentric circles in the foreground) a 10 on a scale of 0 being Possible and 10, the object(s) or area of interest being Probable(ly intentionally designed).

Again, I have already sifted through and not included anything that doesn't even reach 'possible' in my opinion - which is usually in keeping with the opinions of my preview group. Example: Stair stacking on crater walls does not necessarily mean mining operations unless other objects within it's environment appear to interrelate and support that concept.

Obviously, this is all subjective (dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence). If a photo of you were presented to a judge as evidence that you were at the scene of a crime and it wasn't absolutely clear that it was you, an 'expert' would be called in to enlarge, modify, adjust contrast levels, etc. etc. and then present those alterations for reappraisal - and - would only be part of the overall body of evidence used to make a final decision. That's my only aim in doing this. You are the jury, I'm just presenting the images.

Said another way, I am not suggesting that the image below or the discernible shapes within it are absolute proof of intentional design. It is highly unlikely that anyone reading this post either a) took the photo, b) have access to the original positive transparency or, c) hast the ability to poke the objects of interest with their finger. So we are only left with our subjective opinion(s).

The image below is an enlargement from within the original. After enlarging, levels adjustments were then applied to enhance the details. Please do not debate me or anyone else over enlargement interpolation methods or algorithms used. Nothing in this image has been so grossly modified to have changed a cloud into a bunny rabbit - so please don't go there.



Thank you for your time and interest in this topic. I am always interested in collaborating with others. If you are a professional in the graphic arts, image analysis, aerial photography, lunar and planetary sciences, 3D animation, journalism, film, or other complimentary fields and think you would like to contribute, please contact me directly.

Sorry, but I do not understand what you want from us.

Do you want us to say what we think about that being the result of "intentional design"?

reply to post by lunarSightings


You may want to venture over to John Lear's Moon Pictures thread and see what you may have missed.

Springer...

The image that you included in your thread The "Moon anomoly" is it possible that you could actually highlight the apparent, to yourself, structure or form that i am supposed to be looking at.

No disrespect to yourself there must be something there that has caught your eye, but to me it looks like nothing in particular, just a grainy photo.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Sorry, but I do not understand what you want from us.

Do you want us to say what we think about that being the result of "intentional design"?

Exactly. A vote in confidence would be from 0 (possible) to 10 (probable). And of course, any other comments. In the case that these are man-made objects, maybe someone has seen something like these before? They look rather industrial to me (the series of spheres and concentric circles).

reply to post by lunarSightings


OK, then my answer is 0.

And not having seen the original sized photo (as far as I know), I can not comment on the shape of the things because, as you should know the algorithm used to resize (or in this case resample) the image can change the shape of the smaller objects, making them rounder than they are.

reply to post by RancidCat


Every reasonable attempt has been made to avoid overemphasizing any particular element - rather stopping at contrast levels adjustments that allow any and all details in the image (in this case a crop of the original) to be seen as they would in it's 'natural' environment. In the book, I sometimes have additional work-ups on objects of interest - applying various treatments, but they are always presented with not only the original, but with standard - or typical - contrast treatments. The original or the original only adjusted to something closer to what is expected from a high-resolution image must stand on it's own first.

As much as the cameras took care of themselves and did the best job they could do at imaging what came through the lens, I know that they were being operated not by photographers, but (in most cases) cowboy fighter / test pilots... That being said, the originals aren't always composed very well nor do they have proper white balance. I ran into this very same scenario when I taught photography and camera handling to the visiting soldiers on the East/West German border who were there to patrol for a month. No matter what, I would often have to accommodate for the lack of shooting experience under odd conditions like weather (snow, rain), day/night, etc. etc.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by lunarSightings

 

OK, then my answer is 0.

And not having seen the original sized photo (as far as I know), I can not comment on the shape of the things because, as you should know the algorithm used to resize (or in this case resample) the image can change the shape of the smaller objects, making them rounder than they are.

Absolutely true. I will post the original at scale.

Moon image = lunar rock formation.
Antarctic image = ice formation.

Glad I could help. Let me know if you need anything else identified. I got a knack for it.

reply to post by ArMaP


I get the feeling you were being given a pop quiz. You passed it so now the OP will grace us with something to work with, maybe.

My wife has the right to call me an idiot, either outright or by strongly implying it, but total strangers get off on a bad foot when they begin a conversation that way.

I certainly hope this is not the tone this thread will have throughout.

First, I'd like to thank you all for your comments and perspectives.

Here is the original slightly larger crop, at scale, no modifications - 300dpi PNG (lossless - the original is a JPEG - Ugh... plausible deniability?... just kidding).



I would certainly enjoy anyone else's work-ups on this crop.

reply to post by lunarSightings


I think you'll find that Nearest Neighbor (preserve hard edges) will faithfully show the same details.

Originally posted by lunarSightingsHere is the original slightly larger crop, at scale, no modifications - 300dpi PNG (lossless - the original is a JPEG - Ugh... plausible deniability?... just kidding).

Thanks! Yes, well, now that's much better. Yup. Rock formation.

I mean, unless you have some other information about it than just the image that indicates it might be something else. Anything? Anything? Just the image, huh? That's too bad. I would have really liked it to be some cool alien artifact or something. Oh, well.

reply to post by Nohup


Your type of trite, no brainer, responses are the reason the OP started this thread with an attitude. In the same way I dislike being talked down to, I also find reactionary posting the equal of mental graffitti; a way for the bored and non participatory to sound smug. Thread after thread, in forum after forum, this is your stock in trade.

Exactly what tests using what methods have you used to analyze the photo so quickly? would you share your path to such sure knowledge with the rest of us? Or is it just your own eyeball and big super brain that dissected this so quickly?

reply to post by Nohup


"At the philosophical and scientific levels, the most durable feature of the controversy has been the split between the 'Copernicans,' who argue that Humankind does not occupy a special place in the universe, and 'Aristotelians,' who believe that we do." ... "Our thinking about extraterrestrial intelligence also must contend with an innate human longing to feel important. To some people, that requires that we remain unique. The easiest solution available to them is to declare that intelligent aliens do not exist." - Michael A.G. Michaud

Originally posted by NGC2736
Exactly what tests using what methods have you used to analyze the photo so quickly? would you share your path to such sure knowledge with the rest of us? Or is it just your own eyeball and big super brain that dissected this so quickly?

Okay. You seem like a pretty smart person, so you should be able to follow this line of thinking:

Assuming it's really a photo of a lunar feature, I really only know of a half dozen Earthly artifacts that ever made it up there, and I don't recognize any of them in that little photo crop. No human artifacts.

Secondly, nobody has ever, ever proven the existence of aliens. So that automatically leaves them out as a logical explanation, doesn't it? You can't seriously want to explain something with an unknown, can you? That makes no sense at all. Might as well say it's a unicorn watering hole. Oh, unicorns can't live on the Moon you say? Okay, you got me there.

You may believe in aliens. Fair enough. But belief is lousy when it comes to verifying something. If you have some conclusive absolute proof of any kind of alien, period, not even on the Moon, that would be a huge help.

Once we have your unassailable proof of aliens, then we'll debate about whether or not this combination of light and shadow is related to them in some way. I mean, proving aliens exist doesn't prove they have anything to do with this stuff on the Moon, does it? Of course not. It's like saying that potatoes are grown in Idaho, so all potatoes come from Idaho.

In any event, proving the aliens is first on the list. So go ahead. I'm all ears.

Until you prove the existence of aliens, though, we're left with the best default explanation. Rocks. Rocks casting shadows. We know rocks and shadows exist, and that the Moon is covered with them. So we're safe there. And we also know that shadows sometimes fall so that they suggest something to the human brain. Skulls, space ships, water slide parks. We agree on that, right? I don't know what it could be in this example, but maybe you have a better imagination than I do.

But let's not give up that easily. Come on! How would we go about proving that it's not just rocks and shadows? Hmmm... Well, it would help if it was a really, really clear image and the thing in it was so obviously artificial it just couldn't be denied. Maybe with some writing on it, to boot. Unfortunately, we can blow this up until the pixels are two inches across and it still won't make that happen. There's just not enough information in the image. And even so, rocks and shadows naturally form things like right angles and triangle shapes. That would still make the image debateable. So we're stuck there.

I'm still not giving up, though! What else? Like I said, it would be great if we just had some other bit of information about the thing we're supposed to be seeing. Another photo from another angle with different lighting would be good. Not the best, though. No, what we really need is some kind of non-photograhic evidence. A radar or gravity scan would be great. The higher the density the better!

The best thing, of course, would be an actual piece of the supposed artifact that a group of scientists could study in detail for as long as they wanted. That would be the best!

But... aw... we don't have anything like that at all. Doggone it. And here I was really trying to prove this image showed something alien. I really was. Wouldn't that be the coolest? It sure would! Do you know of any anything else we could do to help prove the image shows something alien? I'm all out of ideas.

Anyway, when all is said and done, if all I have is the fuzzy image, then I'm going to have to say it's a rock formation. Could it be an alien artifact? A unicorn watering hole? Jesus's tomb? There's no specific point at which improbable becomes impossible. Impossible is one of those big words like "infinity." But proving that stuff is going to take a little bit more evidence. Actually, a whole lot more evidence. Which we apparently don't have.

So look at it this way. Until we get some way better information and evidence, even if what's shown in the image isn't just some random rock formation, it might as well be. What's the difference if you can't prove it?

Originally posted by lunarSightings
"Our thinking about extraterrestrial intelligence also must contend with an innate human longing to feel important. To some people, that requires that we remain unique. The easiest solution available to them is to declare that intelligent aliens do not exist." - Michael A.G. Michaud

Actually, the easiest solution to the whole controversy, rather than my psychological feelings of inadequacy, is for somebody on either side to provide undeniable proof of alien intelligence. Hit me with a chair, and regardless of my own neuroses, it's hard for me to deny the existence of chairs.

In response to your response to NGC2736's post:

"Assuming it's really a photo of a lunar feature, I really only know of a half dozen Earthly artifacts that ever made it up there, and I don't recognize any of them in that little photo crop. No human artifacts." -- There are way more than half a dozen man-made objects on the Moon. I seriously doubt you know what you're talking about if you aren't even aware of that.

"Once we have your unassailable proof of aliens, then we'll debate about whether or not this combination of light and shadow is related to them in some way." -- Proving aliens exist is not a requirement to consider possible intentional structural design on the Moon. It could certainly be human or alien. For that matter, it could be a manifestation of our dream state. Who the Hell knows?

"The best thing, of course, would be an actual piece of the supposed artifact that a group of scientists could study in detail for as long as they wanted. That would be the best!" -- More distraction as if to give weight to your point of view. Prove that it would be beneficial to study something for as long as one would like.

"It's like saying that potatoes are grown in Idaho, so all potatoes come from Idaho." -- If you and I are looking at a potato, it just may have come from Idaho. More smoke screening on your part.

Your debate strategy attempts to provide the reader with fact, when in fact they are reading your opinions presented as fact.

Using your own tactics and after spouting off like that, please prove, without question, that you are an authority in these matters and that your opinions and positions on this topic should be highly regarded.

oh - and by the way, chairs actually are a figment of our imagination. Everything we perceive is interpreted as electrical impulses that are arranged in our conscious mind. You could certainly be suffering from cognitive blindness while I hit you with anything and you'd have no memory of it whatsoever.

Please find another thread topic and author to pick on. Why are you wasting your and our time? ... that is, unless you're being paid to do so.

The circle stops here with you. I will not reply to your comments until you have something constructive to offer - pro or con on the topic. I suggest that everyone else does the same.

i see a post stamp.

Come on man give us some more than.
Is this the carrot on a stick strategy to sell a new book ?
Are you realy going to show us some of your findings here in public?

reply to post by Nohup


I haven't taken sides on this photo one way or the other. But like many people, you assume that anyone who doesn't agree with your flippant off hand views must be diametrically opposed to you, so you attack.

Now the subject is the photo, not your show off ego, and some of us are awaiting more information from the OP, to show us what he has for evidence. How he arrived at his conclusions that these were structures.

These will also be viewed by some of our own people with a great deal of experience in photos as well, I am sure.

And Nohup, you may be entirely right. But there is no sense in just blowing off analysis because your naked eye cannot find anything. So let us all take a wait and see attitude.

Merry Christmas to each and all.