Lunar Sightings Research Images

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by lunarSightings

 

If you have three photos and a nadir view you can (if you know how to do it) make a 3D model.

... and I just happen to teach 3D. I'm saving all that for the documentary starting in the New Year - after the book is available.

Don't think I'm leading you on, but I thought I'd leave you all with this one before the year was out. This is a screenshot of the 300dpi original (cropped), being viewed at 100% (and the crops that say 100% are as well). Even though it's 72dpi and just slightly JPEG'ed, you can still work with it should you like to. No color/contrast adjustments were made on the top and bottom left.

Click the image for the full size - I just noticed that the forum is not showing the full width.



The leading on part was that I can't give up the photo ID just yet.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by lunarSightings]

I must finish my image search engine soon, if I had it already working and with a good database of images it would be easy to find it.

I know that most of the participants on ATS (compared to other forums) are a cut above the common, so I ask this not to bore anyone or to pick a fight...





Can anyone prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that I took out the rock in the top photo - without using the 2nd one (the original), or any other photos to compare with?

Does anyone have or know of software that analyzes photographs autonomously and reports back, using only the 'info' in the scene that there's something odd? Like some kind of fractal, artificial intelligence, pattern recognition HAL 9000 kinda stuff?

Originally posted by lunarSightings


Can anyone prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that I took out the rock in the top photo - without using the 2nd one (the original), or any other photos to compare with?

Are you kidding? Why should someone waste hours of time in order to find the original pic you are referring to?

Does anyone have or know of software that analyzes photographs autonomously and reports back, using only the 'info' in the scene that there's something odd? Like some kind of fractal, artificial intelligence, pattern recognition HAL 9000 kinda stuff?

Is being developed something so

www.searchenginejournal.com...

googleblog.blogspot.com...

reply to post by lunarSightings



Regarding your question, I am with internos on this one.
As to th image:
This is a late Apollo landing mission image as I believe there are partial footprints so I am assuming they have dropped the rectangular shaped object in the forground from one of the surface experiments.

Again an image id would be kind though.


[edit on 3-1-2008 by sherpa]

reply to post by sherpa


Howdy....

The original is meaningless... The question is wether or not someone has the ability/skill to determine if the fake (the topmost image) has indeed been faked. The crop (of the same size) is below it... but shouldn't be used in proving the topmost one has been modified.

As to why anyone would waste their time suggesting why anyone would waste their time is a total waste of time...

The second part of the post is addressing whether or not anyone knows of any computer vision object search algorithms that have the ability to pull a "Sesame Street 'Which of these these doesn't belong here?' "

Anywayzzzz... The ALSJ version of 22169 is only 3 inches wide (at 300dpi)
www.hq.nasa.gov...

But like I mentioned above, that's not the point to the post. It's about exposing a modified original for which it is, not taking my word for it. Matter of fact, sometimes a court of law has to prove that you did the crime even though you said you did...





[edit on 3-1-2008 by lunarSightings]

reply to post by lunarSightings


Greetings,

The point of your post was glaringly obvious but I cannot play devils advocate on the question of "if an image was modified could you tell" ?, the question is even if you could how do you prove it ?

So there is the problem tell the world the images are censored without proof and be damned or chew the fat about it at places like this.

I was rather hoping you were going to tell me it was a non lander Apollo mission and we could have got excited about the rectangle :

And if there was some software to spot a modified image wouldn't that be a daisy.

Anyway have an exceedingly fantastic New Year

reply to post by lunarSightings


The only thing I think I see (I may have been influenced by the knowledge of what was there) is that the area where the rock should be looks slightly darker, but that means nothing.

And there isn't any "magical" way of knowing if a photo was changed, especially if it was changed before the creation of the digital version.

sherpa and ArMaP,

Exactly! What a dilemma! We are stuck!

If the images were never tampered with, there are those that dismiss 'potential' because it doesn't fit 'reality'... the same ones that don't play Powerball because the odds are against it, yet someone does win...

If the images were tampered with, they are JPEGed and of lower than original resolution, so misconceptions are too easy to come by....

UGH!

In light of this realization, and after openly discussing this with a (limited) public of interested people, I will go ahead and publish my findings.

Individually, each image can (and should) be scrutinized heavily. But collectively (the shear number of oddities I have) will be hard to ignore.

Originally posted by lunarSightings
reply to post by sherpa

 

As to why anyone would waste their time suggesting why anyone would waste their time is a total waste of time...

Don't take me wrong. Tha fact is that the first thing that we need to know is if you are posting an original image or not. If you don't post the references to the original image even if you can, and you ask the other people to investigate about that specific image, is like you ARE asking the people to waste their time. Now is clear thet your puprpose was different, and i agree with Sherpa and ArMap on this one. You construction has value about all the images, but not about images from the Moon or from Mars, for example: each one has a specific number which can be helpfull in order to investigate the area:
If you post the references to the original one, this could help in order to find other images of the same area, for example, an higher res image, and so on: this is what i meant.


[edit on 3/1/2008 by internos]

reply to post by lunarSightings


Good idea publish and be damned, (actually that is a famous saying).

Ah. just looked it up, Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, Attributed; when the courtesan Harriette Wilson threatened to publish her memoirs and his letters, well it didn't do him any harm did it ?

Source

I was digging around for Russian photos of the Moon and found an interesting crater with interesting shapes that appear clustered.

This is the small version:



Large version with arrows (1.6 MB)

Link to 'original'...
From Don P. Mitchell Homepage - Venus, Soviet Space History, Computer Graphics, Science, Etc.

It's another one of those high resolution JPEGs... so, scientifically speaking, this conversation goes no further with those of you that require uncompressed film grain resolutions - so don't bother.

Even so... the clustering of the objects is interesting. It's easy to imagine a mining operation or something along those lines.

reply to post by lunarSightings


Yes nice pic it's nice to see a Russian image now and again and I see Don has updated his website too, no new lunar pics though

I prefer frame X out of that particular set though that one does not float my boat