Revisitng a Clementine Moon Picture THE SMOKING GUN

reply to post by MOTT the HOOPLE

Yeah.
Like this one.


And this one.


Oh my.


Oopsy. Someone at NASA must be taking a long lunch...every day.


[edit on 4/14/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by joey_hv
ok geniouses...let me be perfectly clear...ahem...
I am NOT talking about the FREAKING BLURRED PART!!!!
I am pointing to the obviously NOT natural pipe looking thing coming out of the blurred out part!!!!

AS CLEARLY SHOWN IN THE PICTURE!!!!

IDIOTS!!!

OMG you are right, there also seems to be a big yellow circle and something that looks like letters. Why would nasa blur our nothing but leave the obvious pipe yellow circle and letters?

[edit on 14-4-2010 by zaiger]

This has been discussed to death on several threads....that it pops up again and again says a lot about the intellectual quality of some members here.

reply to post by joey_hv


great thread

reply to post by Phage



I guess after a while they did take to learning photoshop. =)

Originally posted by silversurfer6161
This has been discussed to death on several threads....that it pops up again and again says a lot about the intellectual quality of some members here.

It also say alot about the trusters/skeptics here at ATS.
one word...BLIND

reply to post by joey_hv

I don't think it's so much a matter of being blind as looking at the original photos instead of the clementine browser if there's any doubt about what the browser is showing. If there's a discrepancy between the original photos and the clementine browser, I trust the original photos, it's that simple. The 2.0 browser is much improved over 1.5, but I'm not sure it's perfect. The original photos are your best bet for accurate imagery.

reply to post by Arbitrageur
And the so-called "ORIGINALS" haven't been tampered with right??? RIGHT!

reply to post by joey_hv

Do you have some reason to believe the originals HAVE been tampered with, aside from looking at the browser images which are known to distort the original imagery?

I've never seen any evidence of tampering with the originals, but if you know something I don't, please fill me in on what I'm missing.

Originally posted by joey_hv

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by amazing

 

The blurring is a result of the data retrieval algorithm in the obsolete Clementine Image Browser v1.5. The browser created images on demand and at times various glitches occurred. The new version of the browser does not have those problems.
www.nrl.navy.mil...

Some time ago ArMap located the original Clementine images of the location:
Image 1
Image 2

right... the algorithms...of course and thank god they "fixed" the "browser"..and they were able to provide us with new and "corrected" images...wonderful! well nothing to see then. sorry I brought it up.

So, you (joey_hv) say that even though they have a "fixed" picture that does not show the "intentional photoshopping out of an artificial object", they continue to show the "OMG Smoking Gun!" picture?

Why would they do that? If that version of the images really showed something, why continue to have the incriminating version of the images on the Clementine old image browser website?


[edit on 4/16/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by joey_hv

Originally posted by silversurfer6161
This has been discussed to death on several threads....that it pops up again and again says a lot about the intellectual quality of some members here.

It also say alot about the trusters/skeptics here at ATS.
one word...BLIND

No --

A person who CANNOT look beyond the *apparently obvious* explanation of "OMG! It's blurred so it must be something 'photoshopped' out" is the one with the closed mind.

Open your mind to other possibilities rather than the one you want it to be. Do a little research to see how the image browsers work. Don't be so blind to your pre-conceived notions that you summarily dismiss other valid explanations so quickly.

When I first saw that image (a couple years ago), I originally said to myself "What's up with THAT?" However, I looked "outside the box" for an explanation beyond the knee-jerk "it's blurry -- therefore it must be intentionally photoshopped" and I learned about the way the image browser puts the Clementine mosaic-images together.



[edit on 4/16/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by joey_hv



S&F

I see the pipe and it doesn't look like part of the smudging [artifact] to me.

NASA receives a huge chunk of money from Tax dollars in the form of research grants.

I don't pay taxes to buy lies.

I don't know why I should expect the truth from any Govt. entity. They don't have a great track record on being truthful to the people that fund them.

N....never
A....A
S....straight
A....answer


[edit on 16-4-2010 by whaaa]

reply to post by whaaa
I'm glad someone else can see that the pipe is not part of the smudging.
Makes me wonder if some people are wired differently when one can plainly see the obvious ond others just see "smudginess"

reply to post by joey_hv


If i remember corectly..and i tend to do just that..this pic was originally a pic of a giant humanoid standing at the front of a really large craft..i will have to look it up, but that is what i remember from this picture..who knows..i'll see if i can find the page where i read that at....

reply to post by Shadowhawk


When they could actually do it a different way.....go to Clementine Lunar Map co ordinates Latitude -25.11 and Longitude 98.6. and see what I mean.
It is more like the censorship we normally find on National Archive documents. Why blur when you can just black out?

reply to post by joey_hv


I see you are being smacked around a bit but... most of the negativity appears to be based on the wording of the title. In fact, it really is difficult to call this a 'smoking gun' for anything except, maybe, some poor air brushing technique.

There are many, many lunar images that have been doctored and so there is no real contention here. NASA dodges the issue by refusing to address the questions so you don't even have a denial to work with. The thing that is needed is some original, unaltered images to hold side-by-side. That's the smoking... er, read that: missing part that would constitute the smoke.