Undebatable PROOF that we are not being told everything about the moon

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
or you can buy CDs with about 1.7 million images on them:
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Or you can download them from the link I have been posting, this one (and not only those 88 CDs).

reply to post by ArMaP


Thank you!
Sorry that I didn't notice that link before.

Originally posted by capstan
i think that you can safely scratch mining of that list.they havent got any room for anything worth the trip ,and they arent going to spend millions for a pocket full of rocks!

A sample of soil from the rim of Camelot crater slid from my scoop into a Teflon bag to begin its trip to Earth with the crew of Apollo 17. Little did I know at the time, on Dec. 13, 1972, that sample 75501, along with samples from Apollo 11 and other missions, would provide the best reason to return to the moon in the 21st century. That realization would come 13 years later. In 1985, young engineers at the University of Wisconsin discovered that lunar soil contained significant quantities of a remarkable form of helium. Known as helium-3, it is a lightweight isotope of the familiar gas that fills birthday balloons.

Source

The article does go on to say that transporting it would be difficult, but I think it's sufficient enough to prove that there is a reason to mine the moon. There's much more up there to fill our pockets with than just rocks.


- Strype

Retracted. Found a later post that answered my question. Sorry!

Second line.



- Strype

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Strype]

Originally posted by Anubis3.14
if you could show me some examples to prove your theory , that would be great. Im sure with all this logic, there has to be examples other then moon shots right?

Some of the Viking shots exhibited vertical banding, but that was caused by vibrations in the spacecraft while the camera image was being copied to the tape recorder.

The type of vertical banding that I'm describing (based on programmatic interpolation, not a problem with the images themselves) is only going to happen with a mosaic. Panoramic shots occasionally exhibit vertical banding, but usually it's due to variation in exposures or misalignment. These moon smudges are different, because not only are there slight variations in exposure there's also missing data.

Mosaics of a planet or a satellite (like the moon) are "uglier" than panoramic shots because of lighting changes, the distance from the surface varies, atmospheric distortions warp ground geography (assuming an atmosphere), and weather systems occult ground data. For example lets take this mosaic of Hurricane Norbert and Tropical Storm Odile.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6fa4b6ed155f.jpg[/atsimg]

Notice that there are overlapping segments especially at the poles. Also notice that the program generating the mosaic (MOSRI) doesn't blend the longitudinal strips together. It creates a hard distinctive edge. This image is a particularly good example because there's also a whole strip missing. If you look at the 5th vertical band from the left-edge you'll see MOSRI shaded it an empty blue rather than trying to "patch in" or interpolate the missing data.

Now I want you to think about how you would blend these strips together to make them look like they're part of the same contiguous picture. Okay, now that you've thought about that think about how you would go about filling in the missing data.

In the naïve case you would smudge one pixel from the left hand-side strip to the right-hand side of the next strip. Like so:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/63d12547502e.jpg[/atsimg]
to
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b8318dacb221.jpg[/atsimg]

A more common technique is to use non-parametric sampling, reconstructing the empty area by comparing the window around one pixel with other non-empty areas, trying to locate a good fit for the edge pixels and then tiling.

IE/
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9b2606eec9c8.jpg[/atsimg] (using a 6x6 pixel tile)

There are better ways to do this, but they're computationally expensive and requires a certain amount of training to calculate a good estimation mapping filter.

What I described above are ways to patch a hole in an image. The Clementine data-set is somewhat special by comparison. There's more information to work with because there's LIDAR data (providing height information) as well as UV and infra-red; with many shots taken numerous times using different wave-lengths. So when there's missing visual data there's still potentially useful information to help reconstruct the visual frame.

Lets look at the section you called out in your previous post:

Desired Resolution: 1 pixel = 1 kilometer
- Image Size = 768x768
- Latitude = 0
- Longitude = 318

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c0569aa28711.jpg[/atsimg]

If you click the identified segment (0º23'N, 32º40'E) you should see the following:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/826ab05a4762.jpg[/atsimg]

Click the arrow to the right (which will center you on the vertical line in question) and you'll get 'This Image is Unavailable.'

It should be somewhat obvious now that the program is simply trying to stitch two non-adjacent segments together (n-1 and n+1), interpolating the missing segment (n), and in the process creating a somewhat distorted image. Had the program done a better job using say the additional UV data it could have gray-scaled the image, looked at the luminosity of the neighboring frames, and then normalized the lighting. Then the image could have been composited and sampled to create the 768x768; 1pixel = 1km mosaic, which likely would have looked much better than what we get with the 1st rev of the Clementine Lunar Image Browser.

Im mean, how could you come up with sure info if there were no other examples?

Not to toot my own horn, but I'm a game programmer (worked on Age of Empires 3, Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends, Lord of the Rings: Conquest, Xbox Live Anywhere, etc. ) and I occasionally do graphics programming.

If you ever try to rasterize even a simple BMP you'll see for yourself that alignment issues create very funny image distortions. Once you start playing with more complicated stream-based formats graphical artifacts arise (a) if you don't process the data correctly or (b) if the data's damaged. Things get even more hairy when you try to map a 2D texture using UV coordinates to a 3D model (which is somewhat like creating a mosaic, just in 3D instead of 2D) and you blend two adjacent textures to clean up the seam or to address terrain LOD issues. Blending is expensive so usually this is done statically either through a preprocessing tool or by hand. It's rarely done at run-time.

So I can say with a certain amount of authority based off my own experiences that this is likely the case. Then to confirm my suspicions I did a little bit of research to see how NASA dealt with the problems described above. A few Google queries later I discovered NASA has a team, the Scientific Visual Studio (SVS), at Goddard that investigated "accurately and efficiently [mapping] data sets to geometry allowing for animations with few perceptual transitions among data sets".

That's how I know

If you notice it says "A mosaic of images from the visible portion of the spectrum" at the top right on google moon link. THen if you zoom in you can tell that is correct. They aren't showing us full pieces of the moon, only images put together. Maybe it means something? Discuss/

(if this has already been brought then my bad. It is hard ot read through ever post in a limited amount of time.)

[edit on 11-3-2009 by jdub89]

Originally posted by Xtraeme
Things get even more hairy when you try to map a 2D texture using UV coordinates to a 3D model (which is somewhat like creating a mosaic, just in 3D instead of 2D) and you blend two adjacent textures to clean up the seam or to address terrain LOD issues. Blending is expensive so usually this is done statically either through a preprocessing tool or by hand. It's rarely done at run-time.

It's probably good idea to say that "UV coordinates" are not related to Ultra-Violet light but are something like longitude and latitude (surface coordinates for 3D objects), in this case we have two UVs.

Many mosaics we see from the Moon or Mars are made with ISIS, but I haven't tried to do that yet, but the Clementine Image Browser creates those images in real-time for an unknown number of simultaneous users, so they could not (specially at that time, when computers were not as powerful as today) use computing intensive methods.

PS: thanks for explaining much better than I have done (two or three times) before, and be prepared to repeat again in the future.

Originally posted by ArMaP
It's probably good idea to say that "UV coordinates" are not related to Ultra-Violet light but are something like longitude and latitude (surface coordinates for 3D objects), in this case we have two UVs.

Good call . Though it's kind of funny to think what ultraviolet (UV) coordinates would represent . Perhaps a projection of an ultraviolet wavelength on the xy-plane of the electromagnetic spectrum? Heh, that kind of makes sense. Okay I'll stop being a nerd.

Many mosaics we see from the Moon or Mars are made with ISIS, but I haven't tried to do that yet ...

Did a little reading about it, sounds interesting. Thanks for the pointer!

... , but the Clementine Image Browser creates those images in real-time for an unknown number of simultaneous users,

This does seem true to a certain extent. I can't download the tweak.pl script, but based on how they packed the data in the tar it looks like they piece everything together at run-time. I'm sure they use some basic caching, but even still that's gotta be pretty CPU and memory intensive.

so they could not (specially at that time, when computers were not as powerful as today) use computing intensive methods.

I wasn't ribbing them. For what the original Lunar browser does it's pretty impressive. Especially using Perl's graphics library.

PS: thanks for explaining much better than I have done (two or three times) before, and be prepared to repeat again in the future.

I think you've done the brunt of the work explaining why this isn't evidence of a conspiracy. I just filled in the gaps . It was fun working with ya.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by king9072
I too feel that our government and NASA haven't been honest with the general population.

How come?

Where there is smoke there is fire.

Too many stories have come up (many from some pretty credible sources) that we were not alone when we reached the moon.

Another thing to note is that I'm 56. Stuff that people laughed about and ridiculed 35 years ago are fact now, (lasers, little thin flip phones, camera / phones, microwaves, computers, etc)

What are we ridiculing now that 50 years in the future will be the common reality?

I also use to want disclosure, however when it comes, I fear it will be because it will be on the terms of our "heavenly / other dimensional" visitors and like the white man landing on the shores of North America, the less technologically advanced group (American Indians) were either killed or "assimilated".

One other thought: If just 1% of people that claim to have been abducted is true, with the stories of what these beings have been doing to them, we could possibly be in some deep doo doo as a species when and if disclosure does take place.

What goes around comes around.

The way most people look at a lab rat - well maybe to someone else we are the lab rats.

That is a scary thought.

When and if they land publically, you all can run out and greet them. I think I'll hide out in my "safe room" for a bit and see how the "greeters" and "go on boarders" fare.

it is because the satellites are a lot closer to earth than they are the moon...

Sorry if i sound stupid (this isnt my area of expertise) but is there any telescopes someone can purchase to see these Apollo landing spots on the moon?... if so... why doesnt someone just look and report back?...

please dont flame... i have no knowledge of telescope capabilities...

"Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed."

reply to post by TheStev


One does not need to see artifacts in moon mission photographic records to know there is a high level conspiracy regarding the moon.

Think about it.

What other simple evidence is there of a high level conspiracy?

Airbrushed images of the official lunar record.

Can ANYONE give me a valid, plausible reason, other than to hide something that TPTB do not want the general public to see/know, why the official lunar mission photographic record has been, in many, many cases tampered with, using various digital effects including smearing and smudging, cloning and so on?

If the moon is as claimed, essentially a barren rock with no history of visitation (other than recently as in the official record), and no artifacts that allude to previous visitation or habitation, what is the official purpose of smearing or smudging or otherwise altering and obscuring various surface features that have been recorded on photographic mediums?

One could understand editing in terms of improving quality of a given image. For example, in earlier photographs, sometimes chemical blobs or developing residues would be present on negatives, which obviously detracted from the quality of the resultant prints. These could have been edited out for quality control. However this was not the case, and the material was presented complete with these imperfections. Of course this goes a long way to ruling out deliberate obscuring of surface detail for reasons of image quality, as obviously if this was so we would not be seeing large globs of emulsion on a large number of earlier photographs.

The amount of deliberate obfuscation contained within the official lunar record is staggering. There is no valid reason for this to have occurred, except of course to hide or camouflage features that the public are not permitted to see.

What ligitamate features on a barren, airless moon with no official prior history of colonisation or visitation could there be that would require concealment from the public? The answer is, of course none. None that are legitimate, anyway.

Herein lies the proof, direct incontravertible proof of a high level conspiracy. One does not have to identify structures or roads or robot heads etc. which can all be attributed to pareidolia or IOW seeing recoqnizable images in random objects (such as an ordinary rock that resembles a face if looked at long enough), in order to know there is deliberate and organised and ongoing tissue of lies concerning the moon and it's history.

The question then is WHY is there a conspiracy, not one of IS there a conspiracy.

spikey.

Originally posted by parkwoods21
it is because the satellites are a lot closer to earth than they are the moon...

Wrong, i'm afraid.

The lunar orbiter obtained images from an altitude nearer to the surface of the moon than many earth orbiting satellites are in relation to the earth.

The same with modern missions. A lot of images are taken from an altitude of between 200 - 100 Km.

In contrast, Earth orbiting satellites range in altitude from Low Earth Orbit, 150 - 1,500 Km. Medium Earth Orbit, 1,500 - 35,800 Km. Geostationary Orbit, 35,800+ Km.

So as you can see, earth based satellites are on an order of magnatude FURTHER away from the surface of the Earth, than any of the lunar orbiters are or were, past or present. Yet, even from the much greater distances involved, Earth based satellites can take and recognize a photograph of something the size of a vehicle number plate.

The question is, why is it then the current crop of high res equipped orbiters from nations such as Japan / China, ESA and the US and others only show the public photographs that have a resolution of 10m/pixel at a relatively MUCH lower altitude of only 100 Km / 62 miles?

spikey.

reply to post by eatfleshzombie


Not silly at all.

There are quite a few people who have and are trying to do this.

We just need someone to come on 'board' with access to a large telescope such as the largest in the world at La palma, in the canary islands (10.4M mirror)

I remember reading about eight years ago, that an array of scopes based in Chile, called the VLTI (4 X 8.2M mirrors) where going to image the apollo landing sites to (and i quote) 'Put to rest the conspiracy theories regarding the Apollo moon missions'.

I have tried on and off to contact the lead scientist on this project a Dr. Richard West, who made this statement to a reporter from the UK newspapaer 'The Telegraph'. Strangely, soon after this statement was made, he 'retired' from the VLTI project having been the lead scientist for a number of years, and i can find no trace of him anywhere, despite contacting ESA directly, who gave me his personal email address.

Of course i had sent numerous emails to the address, but never received a reply. Curious.

spikey.

reply to post by ofhumandescent


To be honest ofhumandescent,

I have no problem with our 'culture' being 'assimilated' by a space faring advanced culture. In fact, it can't came soon enough.

What has our culture got going for it apart from constant war and killing, profiteering from the vulnerable in devious and evil ways, leaders who tell us to do as i say, not as i do (or else i'll imprison or kill you), greed over compassion, and so on.

Provided we are not wiped out by these ET's, which in itself is highly unlikely, as we would be dead already, given the length of time they have been observing us, and not wiped out by a own species first, it will be the best thing that could ever happen to humanity, to have our culture as it is now, surplanted with a superior culture and technology from 'them'.

I only hope our 'leaders' don't screw it up for us first.

spikey.

Originally posted by eatfleshzombie
Sorry if i sound stupid (this isnt my area of expertise) but is there any telescopes someone can purchase to see these Apollo landing spots on the moon?... if so... why doesnt someone just look and report back?

Unfortunately you can't view the landing sites with a telescope from Earth. The mirror for the thing would have to be at least 200m in diameter. The largest I know of is 11m.

Originally posted by spikey
Can ANYONE give me a valid, plausible reason, other than to hide something that TPTB do not want the general public to see/know, why the official lunar mission photographic record has been, in many, many cases tampered with, using various digital effects including smearing and smudging, cloning and so on?

Firstly, digital image editing didn't exist in the 60's and 70's.

Secondly, I have yet to see any signs of this airbrushing / editing of the Apollo images. Could you post one photo that you consider to be edited? I'd like to see what you think is a sign of tampering.

The question is, why is it then the current crop of high res equipped orbiters from nations such as Japan / China, ESA and the US and others only show the public photographs that have a resolution of 10m/pixel at a relatively MUCH lower altitude of only 100 Km / 62 miles?

Probably because the recent probes from ESA, Japan, China and India don't have high res imaging capabilities. Taking high res images isn't the goal of every probe. NASA's LRO will be able to take images of 0.5m - 1m per pixel. It will be launching this year on May 20th, if all goes according to plan.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by jra]

Interesting, but I remember being disappointed not being able to see my house on google when friends in smaller, less important (lol) countries could... and then eventually they mapped it. And then I wasnt so much happy as scared.
So its not proof but that doesnt mean nasa's not covering something up, I have no doubt they are, why would their budget be so high if the government/military didnt see something useful in space? Either they want to mine or weaponise space or are some pimp alien's bitch, I haves no idea, but I cant imagine the moon is just some bland grey rock yet they fly hundred million dollar flights to photograph rocks. Pay me half that Ill give the same results.

reply to post by Xtraeme


YOU ARE KIDDING?!

Surely you can't be serious mate? That is so obviously a prime example of digital manipulation that it screams out at you. And one example amongst hundreds of others.

Your reason for not believing a cover up is because the graphical artists would have used a clone tool?

THEY DO, and they use smearing and smudging and all manner of grahical manipulation to cover up things they don't want us to see. Although future missions photo's will use intelligent computer programs to digitally mask whatever isn't natural, so mistakes such as we see in these images will not be so obvious.

You are wrong mate, really wrong. But, believe what you like of course, you're only kidding yourself.

spikey.

reply to post by jra


Coincidentally, i was just looking at one such example (among many available to view) from the US Navy's Clementine site.

Here's the link for you.

www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil... &sensor=UVVIS&filter=415_nm


Knock yourself out.

As an aside, considering the JAXA/ Selene Mission profile is:

"KAGUYA consists of a Main Orbiter at 100km altitude and two small satellites (Relay Satellite and VRAD Satellite) in polar orbit. The scientific instruments on board the Main Orbiter are used for the global mapping of lunar surface,magnetic field measurement, and gravity field measurement together with the instruments on the Relay Satellite and VRAD Satellite. The key technologies, such as the lunar orbit insertion and attitude / orbit control of the Orbiter are verified for future lunar exploration."

The key phrase being: "global mapping of lunar surface", do you not find it at least odd, that the probe only has a TC capable of 10m/pixel?

From JAPAN?! A country world famous for inventiveness in photographic science?

If you don't, then you are visiting the wrong website my friend.

spikey.



[edit on 2-4-2009 by spikey]