Lunar Sightings Research Images

Consider the following simulation of detail loss:



Note further that image (a) with reasonable detail can even confuse the eye. Note the pork chop shape on the left edge of (c) and how it's not so visible in (a). Also note the hairpin upside down U or V shape top center of (c). It's clearly evident from (a) that this is not manmade but instead geological terrain that has been visually emphasized from radical enlargement.

With image (c) alone, it would be difficult to determine if there were intentionally designed structures. Image (c) leaves the casual viewer with the impression of seeing only a bunch of fuzzy dots.

In contrast to image (c) above, this higher contrast image of another object on the moon

has more detail and is not suffering so badly from a low resolution, fuzzy dot appearance as in (c) above.

Still, it's 'fuzzy' and to all those wasting their time reading this thread looking for Kodak Moment / Time Magazine Photo of the Year images, I offer the following viewpoint:

The image above (my ATS avatar) is a shape, or collection of shapes that we are visually unfamiliar with and, considering the magnification of the telephoto lens (diminishing depth perception) and loss of color, makes it even more difficult to distinguish natural from 'unnatural' shape forms.

So, if you find yourself checking these kinds of threads and always feel inclined to offer kind advice that attempts to keep the uneducated masses in 'logic' check, how about seriously taking the time to carefully review not only the images presented, but have a look yourself at the archived imagery. Please refrain from commenting from the armchair - get involved or just sit back and watch.

Originally posted by Fraank Fontaine
Not to be negative, but give me pictures of a whole planet, and I'll 100% show you things that 'look' and appear to be artificial.

Forteans call it 'simulacrum'. The Human eye/mind, likes to make seemingly random things look like things it can relate to to lessen confusion in the conscious mind.

All I saw was blurry pictures with some interesting patterns. Sorry, but from where I am sitting I see nothing that says to me 'OMG! MOON BASE!".

This is not just your pictures, and I am in no way singling you out, it is on *all* pictures I have seen of the Moon and Mars, be they on ATS or from supposed experts such as Hoagland...

Until we see the words 'Hello' spelled out in rocks on the surface of Mars of the Moon, I am afraid that no amount of gazing at pictures, and 'seeing' patterns is going to help.

Thank you Fraank. I need to include simulacrum and the role it plays in image analysis in the Methods and Techniques section of the book.

You are obviously intelligent, well read, and grounded. Unfortunately (IMHO), even if I did show you a picture of the Moon clearly showing the words "Hello", you and many others that share your grounded perspective would still not believe me or the photo.

In the same breath it's preached that Jesus will return but to fear and avoid the false profit appearing as Jesus! Where does it end?

reply to post by Nohup

Good God! You sounded more like a 60s record player with the needle stuck in the groove, than anything worth while to be pondered upon! A rather pedestrian argument! Like proving Jesus existed. Any proof? Nix!

But you go to church, huh? Unless you are an atheist. So your lame duck argument that the existence of aliens should be proved beyond doubt first, before 'jumping' to an intelligent design explanation of anomalies on the Moon, is beyond bizarre!

As your banal argument suggests, the pope should be put away in a cellar, the churches should be brought down, and anything concerning Jesus should be banned from discussion until the reality of Jesus is proved beyond doubt! Otherwise the Vatican is just a pile of rocks!

That said, on what do you base your verbose arguments? Why is the necessity to prove that aliens exist, before one can embark on any analysis of anomalies on the Moon (Or Solar System)? There is another line of thought that black projects are already mining the Moon! Can you prove that this is not already happening? Do you profess to have inside knowlede of EVERYTHING that's going on?

In other words, why should those 'artificial structures' (If they are artificial) be made by aliens? They could very well belong to black projects.

Cheers!

Hi Lunarsightings and a belated welcome to ATS.

I appreciate the time you have invested pouring over lunar images as I have had a taste of that myself, although I don't think it was 1000 hours though.

With that experience in mind I would like your comment on a couple of images that had puzzled me.

The first image is a scan from a book called "Astronomy" by Donald Menzel the image was idenified as AS8-12-2209.

I searched and identified the image at lpi who have a low res version for identification purposes online, unfortunately that version is unsuitable for seeing the object in question so I ordered a hi-res copy from NASA Johnson Space Center, this is the second image.

As you can see the anomaly is still there but different looking more like a piece of cotton tied together.

I have my own conclusion at the moment but that could change at any time if there is any new data that appears.

Any way here are the two images remember the second one is a clip from the fullsize AS8-12-2209.







Here is a link to the lpi low-res online copy:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

reply to post by sherpa


Hi sherpa! Those images are pretty intriguing! But I think that string-like object is nothing but a small strand of wool or something similar present during processing. Do you remember zorgon's post where he had shown a mosaic of Moon pictures placed on a huge globe from which photographs were being taken? I think it's probably during this procedure that a strand got stuck on the globe due to some electrostatic effect, before the photograph was taken.

Why the heck don't they scrub and clean the darn imaging lab before taking photographs??

Cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh


Thanks mike for your comment.

I think it's probably during this procedure that a strand got stuck on the globe due to some electrostatic effect, before the photograph was taken.

And yet the strand is present in both images except they are clearly different the original book scan is thicker and less spindly than the later image, if this was an accidental contamination than why is it such a complicated shape why not just a strand of which there is evidence of over the full size image and easily identifiable as such.

I would strongly suggest they are not the same generation scan and if that is the case what are the odds for having so similiar a strand in both copies millions to one perhaps.

Ok here is my take, I think the anomaly does exist in the original but when the next generation print was produced it was deliberately obscured so someone went to the trouble of "creating" a lint faxcimile of it for the sole reason of convincing anyone looking at the two images side by side that a piece of cotton strand was all there was there in first place.

Why would they go to this trouble ?, I think that maybe the original book scan slipped through the net and was already in circulation in the book so plausable deniability could be created by including something that was similiar to but looked exactly like a piece of cotton in knots for the later scans, in fact in much later scans it dissapears altogether as in this example.

In fact the later the example of this image and many others the less detail there is, just look at the Clementine dataset compared to the early lunar orbitor and Apollo images, which I am sure you have, just to illustrate my point.

Is it time to head for the bar yet ? perhaps I can convince you after a few beers.

OK, I had a swig and back now!!

Do you notice that there is no hint of a shadow from that object? From your second pic, it is apparent that the sun is toward the right corner. The shadows on nearby craters/terrain perturbations are noticeable, but not from that object. It's probable that the pic was taken from a mosaic with multiple light sources focused on the globe, and therefore there are no shadows of that object on the surface.

But there are other aspects which you've brought out that need to be studied in greater detail.

But before that, it's back to the bar!!

Cheers!

Sherpa,

Great find! If it's not on the surface, it gives us a clue as to how the photo we are looking at was taken. If it is on the surface... whoa! I'll dig into it later today - thanks for the link to the JSC version (if I understood the post).

Is there any way you can upload the version you ordered? If you ordered it from LPI, did they post it up on an FTP folder - giving you a link? I'd like to get my hands on the original - Apollo 8 images are rare... as I think you will see why in my next post

Apollo 8 Images in high rez and all it's gray tone are hard to come by... and this may be why:



NOTE: ATS code only let's me embed Google Videos or You Tube videos.
Click here for a higher quality version on REVVER >>




[edit on 29-12-2007 by lunarSightings]

Hey there Sherpa and hello again there Mike, this question could go to either one of ya - whoever answers first I guess.
Just so I'm clear, this is the genuine 'anomaly' correct? And do we have a scale on this guy?
Happy New Years to the both of ya! Thank you much fer yer time!



spikeD.

[edit on 29-12-2007 by spikedmilk]

reply to post by sherpa


Could you (or somebody else) point where in the photo is (or should be) that "lace"?

I could never understand where I should look for it in the complete photo.

reply to post by spikedmilk

Just so I'm clear, this is the genuine 'anomaly' correct? And do we have a scale on this guy?

Yes that is the original from the book scan.

Regarding scale I would suggest several kilometers across so it is doubtfull that it is some indigenous macro lifeform.

reply to post by ArMaP

I could never understand where I should look for it in the complete photo.

Do you have a copy of the hi-res version because if you have not than you will not see it, if you do have a hi-res copy than you should have no trouble finding it unless you are pressed for time that is,

reply to post by sherpa


The image I have is 4400 x 4600 pixels. Is it good enough?

And if it is good enough, where should I look?

Thanks.

reply to post by lunarSightings

Is there any way you can upload the version you ordered? If you ordered it from LPI, did they post it up on an FTP folder - giving you a link? I'd like to get my hands on the original

They did not post to an FTP folder, the 70mm negative is pulled and sent to one of the approved labs for scanning in my case they gave me a link to their website to download, the link is dead now for obvious reasons.

You could of course order a copy yourself, there is a choice of labs you could use I used Pounds Labs they were by far the cheapest, whether there would be a difference in quality between the labs I could not tell having used just the one.

I am told this copy is used for all JSC prints including there own but I wonder.

reply to post by ArMaP


Sounds good enough.

Bear with me I am trying to upload a version that is marked for location at photobucket.

Originally posted by sherpa
reply to post by lunarSightings

 

Is there any way you can upload the version you ordered? If you ordered it from LPI, did they post it up on an FTP folder - giving you a link? I'd like to get my hands on the original

They did not post to an FTP folder, the 70mm negative is pulled and sent to one of the approved labs for scanning in my case they gave me a link to their website to download, the link is dead now for obvious reasons.

You could of course order a copy yourself, there is a choice of labs you could use I used Pounds Labs they were by far the cheapest, whether there would be a difference in quality between the labs I could not tell having used just the one.

I am told this copy is used for all JSC prints including there own but I wonder.

www.poundslabs.com...

Is this them? What's the procedure? If that's the right company (link above) I don't see any references to NASA archives and the resulting service.

I usually get all my digitals from LPI (ain't easy... have to keep a nice tone.. and keep bugging them over and over without pissing them off... helps to know someone)

reply to post by ArMaP


Ok, I have done that.

The red spot marks the location.

reply to post by lunarSightings

Is this them? What's the procedure? If that's the right company (link above) I don't see any references to NASA archives and the resulting service.

Yes the guy there is Lori Mitchel, nice guy, you would have to email them with the following:

1. Negative size = 70mm

2. Size print or scan you wish to obtain

3. If you want a scan, do you want it on CD or download it from an ftp site

4. If you elect to receive a print or scan on CD, let the labs know where you are (country).



Once you have received the price quote you will need to send [email protected] an email and include the following information in that email:



1. Your name, address, telephone number and email address

2. Photo id: AS8-12-2209

3. Name of lab selected


Pounds labs is the place believe it or not.

reply to post by sherpa


Thanks sherpa.

I promise I will follow all the links you post in the future.