Lunar Sightings Research Images

reply to post by ArMaP

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

Gee thanks Armap I appreciate that

Just let me know if you find that bad boy on your image.

Enigma to me, why do you continue to use 30 year old (oops clementine 1994) NASA images when there are 3D and even HDTV resolution available from Japan JAXA site? It's almost like some people are hanging on to the old images, so much time invested.

Europa ESA and China CSSAR will provide images aswell, via SMART-1 and the Chang'e lunar orbiters.

Added: Yes i know Kuyaga (Selene) just have started its real mission (21th december 2007) but it will orbit the moon for 10 months, i am quite certain that if you map the correct coordinates in the the new images and compare them to the old NASA images many of the anomalies found in the older material will be explained.

[edit on 29-12-2007 by tangent45]

Originally posted by tangent45
Enigma to me, why do you continue to use 30 year old NASA images when there are 3D and even HDTV resolution available from Japan JAXA site? It's almost like some people are hanging on to the old images, so much time invested.

Why should we use images with which has been mapped the 0,0003 % of the moon Instead of ones with which has been mapped the 99,9 % ?
Should we limit our researches to the three craters provided so far by JAXA?


[edit on 29/12/2007 by internos]

Interesting thread. I agree that some of the images just look like rock formations (albeit peculiar ones), but some of the images do look like structures of some sort. Will be watching this thread and have flagged it. Thanks for all your work.

reply to post by sherpa


There is nothing there in the image I got from a search on The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth.

reply to post by ArMaP


And there lies the problem as mentioned in my post I don't believe the negative that was scanned for my copy is used elsewhere or if it is it is modified.

I would like to get a copy of mine to you but the problem is size, I have donated a copy of it to Zorgon I don't know if he has hosted it though it may be worth a U2U to him.

Originally posted by tangent45

Enigma to me, why do you continue to use 30 year old (oops clementine 1994) NASA images when there are 3D and even HDTV resolution available from Japan JAXA site? It's almost like some people are hanging on to the old images, so much time invested.

Europa ESA and China CSSAR will provide images aswell, via SMART-1 and the Chang'e lunar orbiters.

Thanks for the post tangent45. Pre 1970 photos are the best for finding artifacts that NAZA doesn't want us to see.

Around 1970 NAZA got to airbrushing their photos in earnest.

Today, all photos are digitally 'cleansed' of any and all offending material by super sophisticated computer programs which automatically elminate offending objects and artifacts and replace them with more suitable and approved images.

The Navy got a little carried away with the program and started putting spiders, monkeys, worms and others bugs and animals inside craters and over other areas of offensive artifacts. The U.S. Navy's contempt for the public is quite clear.

As far as China and Japan, my opinion is that they're using recycled NAZA images.

The best images of the Moon as far as finding artifacts, buildings, bridges, arches, structures, houses, space ports and stuff like that are from the Zond series or Lunar Orbiter photos. Also pre-1970 NASA books of photographs of the moon either by Lunar Orbiter or Apollo contain photos with a wealth of artifacts. And the reason they do is that NAZA, back in the late 60's couldn't conceive that almost 50 years in the future the average public would have computers with imaging programs that could enlarge their sloppily airbrushed photos and find artifacts that the airbrushers missed.

Thanks for the post.

reply to post by tangent45


One of the reasons, as Internos said, is that there aren't any newer images available.

Another reason is that recent images do not mean better images. A close-up image taken from an Apollo mission is better than a 1 metre per pixel photo from a new probe.

But where there are more versions available we should use them all, and although that does not happen much with the Moon it happens with Mars, where there is no reason to keep on looking only to photos from 10 or 20 years ago when we can look to photos from last year or from last week.

reply to post by johnlear


Do you also think that the HDTV images are NASA images recycled?

Or are you one of those people that think that are fake images?

Or do you think that they are real images?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Do you also think that the HDTV images are NASA images recycled?

The short video looked like a plaster of paris globe. I think the earth was a photo cutout glued to stick which somebody moved up and down to simulate the earth rising and setting.

Or are you one of those people that think that are fake images?

Fake or recycled or plaster of paris model.

Or do you think that they are real images?

I have not seen any real images of the moon taken by Japan or China.

Here is the portion of your image enlarged. You can see (outline) where someone has fiddled around trying to make the electronically operated brontosaurus disappear:





Thanks for the post.

reply to post by johnlear


Sorry everyone for keeping on this off-topic (maybe) detour, but I would like to ask one thing.

Without any intention of offending, do you think that you would have the same opinion if it was an European or Russian probe?

I ask this because I have seen that many people have a strange reaction to the fact that these two recent probes are from Japan and China, it looks like the origin of the probes is more important than their work.

Originally posted by johnlear
Here is the portion of your image enlarged. You can see (outline) where someone has fiddled around trying to make the electronically operated brontosaurus disappear:

Do you seriously believe that someone would make such a bad job and that nobody would notice?

Do you know how easy it is to physically "correct" a photo? Even I can do it!

reply to post by ArMaP


I would think that any and all airbrushing happened way back when... nowadays it's probably all digital.

I see oddities in the rare few images of hot-spots that I can get a stereo image out of... fuzzy zones that don't match on the two images - it's hard to tell because so many images were improperly handled during the scanning process (i.e. JPEG and GIF'ing and re-JPEG'ing)... I often get responses like, "So and so department had this one... here ya go!" and that's that.


[edit on 30-12-2007 by lunarSightings]

reply to post by johnlear


(( converted to a U2U private message ))

[edit on 30-12-2007 by lunarSightings]

Thanks to Sherpa for tipping me off about a new photo. Here's a crop of some very interesting stuff:



Definitely going in the book!

Originally posted by lunarSightings
Well... here ya go. Side-by-side comparison of the same official archive photo ID from two different sources. Compare for yourself. I didn't know there were dust storms on the Moon, but I guess there are?

I'm sorry, but I see nothing in these two photo's that's worth mention. You seem to be digging for minute details in grainy NASA photo's that lack anything resembling high resolution.

I can easily spot UFO's in cloud formations... that is, if I were daft.

reply to post by full-auto


Please take the time to have a serious look at this. Maybe even step back away from the monitor. Find the shapes that are outlined in the orange/yellow in the photo to the left.



We're talking pattern recognition here. (read back a few pages) The Moon is incapable of creating a series spheres with concentric circles that have cross members. There are no rivers to roll boulders into spheres. There is no Mother Nature except for volcanic activity of days long gone and billions of years of 30,000 mph meteor impacts. These effects don't create the shapes I outlined in the orange/yellow. Here on Earth, yes. On the 'dead for billions of years' Moon? No.

reply to post by lunarSightings


If the photos were altered and the prints that we can see today are copies of those altered photos then they were altered "back then".

I don't know about airbrushing photos, I never saw it being done, if we want good results what is used is direct painting on the copy or scrapping the emulsion from the negative to add darker areas and scrapping off the emulsion on the print or painting with black on the negative if we want brighter areas. Using this method we can make a complete alteration of the photo that does not appear as such in any copy or even if we look at the photo with a lens.

Digital alteration is also easy, my brother changed a dog into a lion for an advertising job where a model was to stand beside a lion, but they thought it better to use a dog.

The old digital versions of those images, as far as I have seen on NASA sites, were GIFs, TIFFs or TARGA files and none of those have the problem of too much compression as have JPEG files. Further conversion (probably by ignorant people that thought that JPEG was the best way of distributing the images because it makes smaller files) to JPEG created blurry pictures and JPEG artifacts, but if we can get even those older GIF files (they are limited to 256 colours, but 8 bit grayscale images only have 256 shades of gray) we may see some that are better than the newer copies.

Originally posted by lunarSightings
The Moon is incapable of creating a series spheres with concentric circles that have cross members.

I don't know how you know what Nature can and can not do on the Moon, but even if Nature is not capable of doing what you say that that photo shows there is still one thing that you apparently neglected; the fact that you are extrapolating to 3D what you see on a 2D representation of a 3D scene.

Unless you have two photos of the same area from different angles (and if you have two photos of that area I don't think I have seen them) you can not be sure of the 3D characteristics of anything.

For example, is this really a giant bottle or just a painting that gives that idea when seen from the place where the photographer was?

Does this means that those things are only tricks of the light? No, but it does mean that we should not be so sure of ourselves about things we do not and can not know for sure.

And another thing, when you resample the photos you may be changing the shape of its pixels (depending on chosen the algorithm), something that was just one pixel (and so could be of any shape) may turn into a round shape.

PS: sorry for interfering in your answer to full-auto.

reply to post by ArMaP

If the photos were altered and the prints that we can see today are copies of those altered photos then they were altered "back then".

I agree.

I don't know about airbrushing photos, I never saw it being done

Are you saying you have never physically seen it being done or that you havn't seen any evidence of it being done.

if we want good results what is used is direct painting on the copy

I agree, a print could be taken from an original negative altered and a new negative produced from this copy for later scans.

scrapping the emulsion from the negative to add darker areas and scrapping off the emulsion on the print or painting with black on the negative if we want brighter areas.

I have had no involvement with scraping negatives, but back in the early seventies I worked in a commercial art studio and was frequently involved in cleaning up, (spotting), and sometimes enhancing negatives with a special paint, which I can't remember the name of but do remember was coloured brown.
The resulting work was used in final production artwork and was very difficult to tell that this work had been done if it was evident the artwork would be scrapped and redone.

Further conversion (probably by ignorant people that thought that JPEG was the best way of distributing the images because it makes smaller files) to JPEG created blurry pictures and JPEG artifacts

Agreed, one further complication is the native format of the scanners used, with the Lab I used it was jpeg, I did not realise this until after I insisted on being supplied with Tiff scans and being dissapointed with the results, it was only at this point that I asked what the native format was of the scanner they were using and was told jpeg.
So with this in mind I thought it better to accept the jpeg images in case there was any conversion loss from jpeg to tiff, to be honest I am not sure if there is in my particular case but you can see why jpeg is so common.