Zeeman Crater - NASA editing at it's finest?

Originally posted by badw0lf
Back in the 1800's people were able to edit photo's to achieve things such as this:

circa 1865: In this photo by famed photographer Mathew Brady, General Sherman is seen posing with his Generals. General Francis P. Blair (far right) was added to the original photograph.

Photo tampering throughout history

Yet people still believe that NASA are simply smudging out secrets on the moon, despite the evidence to show it's due to a variety of reasons...

What a world...

If you have "free vision" you can see the 2 images in stereo!

If Nasa wanted to hide something by cloning or airbrushing you wouldn't be left with square blurred artifacts or such in the images. These get posted as 'proof' that Nasa is hiding something all the time here yet a kid with 5 minutes in photoshop could hide anything and leave no traces behind.

Originally posted by annella
Can someone tell me how far above the Moon the 1960's lunar orbiter was when photographing the surface?? I ask because on another site I just visited, somebody was excited about seeing stairs. Stairs??

I have assumed that all the images we see are of immense objects, man/alien made or not. Any stairs seen would be for mega giants. Surely!

Anyway, would be great to have an idea of size of objects we are discussing if possible.

Gladly

The first three missions, dedicated to imaging 20 potential Apollo landing sites, were flown at near equatorial orbits as close as 22 miles above the lunar surface. The fourth and fifth missions were devoted to broader scientific objectives, and were flown in high altitude polar orbits.

On a typical Lunar Orbiter mission, the photographic system provided high-resolution pictures of 4,000 square miles of the Moon's surface with enough clarity to show objects the size of a card table.

From ITT The defense contractor who made the cameras
www.ssd.itt.com...

They also say this...

The 1600 pictures captured in total by the five Lunar Orbiters using the ITT photographic system enabled photogrammetrists at NASA and the U.S. Government's Defense Mapping Agency to create accurate maps of the Moon's surface.

Wonder why the US Dept of Defense needed Moon Maps

Why would nasa even let these files be leaked anyway? With such crap editing? You're telling me an organisation with bright minds would let crap get leaked if they were covering-up something? You're telling me a guy with a PHD in physics wouldn't know how to edit an image without leaving evidence?

More over-analysation of digital artifacts for the ones needy of a fresh conspiracy in my opinion. I mean heck, if the image was edited, it looks like they used microsoft paint. You would expect them to have high-tech image editing software if they were in on a massive disinformation and cover-up spree.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
If Nasa wanted to hide something by cloning or airbrushing you wouldn't be left with square blurred artifacts or such in the images.

You would if NASA purposefully wanted to keep you guessing. Since we have seen many of the pictures that the 'made prettier' perhaps the obvious fudges are just to give us busy work.

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
You're telling me an organisation with bright minds would let crap get leaked if they were covering-up something? You're telling me a guy with a PHD in physics wouldn't know how to edit an image without leaving evidence?

Bright minds? Ummm no I am not telling you that...

You seen NASA's track record?

This is when something went wrong a while back and they had no idea



This is when they hit Temple 1 which cause a secondary explosion that they had NO IDEA why



This is when they flubbed the "Bomb the Moon Mission"

High Five Fail



NASA = No Access to Space for Americans - Robert Bigelow

reply to post by zorgon


You seem to be insinuating that they are morons and anything but "bright minds" especially with the inclusion of your last quote. And your proof is: Stress when unforeseen consequences from a slight miscalculation presents themselves, a guy left hanging on a high five by someone much older than him (even a youtube comment states that), some guys jumping up and down in celebration. Really?

Using that reasoning, I guess you could also say John Nash is not bright because he has schizophrenia and talks to himself and is still somewhat awkward in socialisation. Really? You're last quote is amusing though, considering they still to this day send crap up into space, and arguably - mars. I will aso add, they have provided you with the things such as the hubble space telescope, and various satellites up there through research. You seem to dismissing it all as the product of morons.

If an organisation was forced by a government to keep the lid on something they would not let loose with little obvious mistakes such as those presented in the image. Recommend a native mandarin-speaker to translate it for you.

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
Really? You're last quote is amusing though, considering they still to this day send crap up into space, and arguably - mars.

NASA is here to entertain us. The US NAVY runs the real space program

If an organisation was forced by a government to keep the lid on something they would not let loose with little obvious mistakes such as those.

I dunno...
Ask Sgt Karl Wolf

Google Video Link

But seriously... not ALL of em at NASA are bad... you would be surprised at the emails I get I even had one ask me to remove the music from my site because the X-file theme caused him some grief while browsing my website at work

reply to post by zorgon


I see, i'll watch that video when my internet gets uncapped by the usage nazi's in a few hours. Already takes a long time to load pages. HAHAHAHA did you remove the x-files theme?


:pics or it didn't happen

Originally posted by zorgon
Wonder why the US Dept of Defense needed Moon Maps

They did not - they were the ones with the experience to produce a map from the pictures - they had been doing it on earth for a long time already, so they were the people to do it for the moon.

Seems a funny argument to me- 'because NASA/TPTB did such a crap job of 'blurring' the photos out, then they didnt do it at all'? Bearing in mind this was pre-digital editing, what were they're options? Ive yet to hear a convincing explanation for the many, many NASA and Clementine photo's that have these unusual blurs that obviously have something behind them- you can see the shadow of an object on some of them. Im open to conversion if someone can explain it to me.

I cant understand why they would do such a half arsed job in smudging it out if they are trying to hide something?
Wouldnt it be better for them to not show it at all than to show a pic like this? Or at least do a better job than that at covering it. I could of done a better job at hiding that thing with windows paint.

reply to post by Thunda


The Clementine photos do not have any blurring, look at the images available on the Clementine archive and you can see that.

reply to post by redoubt


thats very good work.


best enhanced example of that image ive seen.

what software do you use if you dont mind me asking.



regards

reply to post by ArMaP


My mistake- I thought the image in the OP was a Clementine photo.

reply to post by Thunda


It's an image from the Clementine image browser version 1.5, that created the images requested by the user "on the fly", looking for all the images that would fit in the area that was requested and creating an image with the requested size.

From what I have seen, most of the blurred areas that appeared on those images were the same areas for which there was no photo, so, apparently, the software that created the images with the requested resolution created blurred areas when it didn't had any image, probably using the edges of the surrounding images, so the blurred areas are just a small area resized to a much bigger size.

But that is just my interpretation of what we could see with version 1.5 of the Clementine image browser.

Here's what came out of adjusting the clip Zeeman posted on the China thread:

After properly straightening out the effects from the cylindrical projection it looks like this, the proportions should be close to the real thing this way, notice that the craters are naturally round now.



The actual horizontal de-enhancement factor for the image was 3.5 so the whole complex is more like 45 km in width ...

There is a thread here about this:
lunaticoutpost.com...

This is my post in a similar forum, i think it makes a good point.

Originally posted by Plan2exist18

These are 3 pictures, one is an original from the moon landing, the other 2 are ones i have personally edited (i am 17 by the way, and probably will never work for NASA)

Original picture:

Now with simple, 5 minute editing feature:

Weird, or are you saying that this is the best NASA, a large corporation with the means to send someone to outer space, and probably deeply involved in intelligence activity beyond our wildest imagination, your saying THIS is the best they would be able to do:

Look, i believe the government hides alot of crazy sh*t....but if we want to have any chance of survival when that SHTF, we need have discernment of the validity of what we see or we will be susceptible to the lies that are constantly presented to us. Dont let them underestimate our intelligence, its truly our only hope.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Thunda

 

The Clementine photos do not have any blurring, look at the images available on the Clementine archive and you can see that.

Indeed, ArMaP, indeed... and here I was thinking that all that had been resolved quite a while ago... here at ATS, in fact... as being an artifact of how the Clementine viewer v1.5 assembled images from the database into a mosaic of the requested area..

That said, if I've somehow missed something in regards to these specific images (the 'spire' one as well)... could someone please enlighten me.

We won't mention the hi-res color ones.

Anyway. a tad confused at the re-Skipperization of these pics...

Peace,

Pixel

- - I see you were typing as I was typing...


But hey, this is a Lunar Orbiter thread, how'd we... well. anyway, trying to do too many things at once, including non-net stuff...

Originally posted by dereks
They did not - they were the ones with the experience to produce a map from the pictures - they had been doing it on earth for a long time already, so they were the people to do it for the moon.

Really?

You ARE aware that the Clementine mission was a US NAVY with the Ballistic Missile Defense Agency project? Part of the Star Wars program?

Hmmmmm

However, there is still a space-borne component to our theater and national missile defense architecture, and that is the space-based infrared satellite. That will allow us to do tracking, particularly in boost and in the mid-course phases of the trajectory of a ballistic missile. So all the technologies that were demonstrated on Clementine are technologies that we would hope would be either used or would be the grand-daddies of technologies that we would eventually use in our space surveillance platforms. So that part of the space architecture is still very much alive.

www.defense.gov...

BTW that was also the press release that told us about the water on the moon

A: As I mentioned, what we can tell from looking at the radar return is roughly the area that is covered by this. Assuming it reflects ice like ice on Mercury -- making that assumption. That's been well looked at. Then in order to see this back scatter effect, this roadside reflector effect; it's estimated that we have to see some number of wavelengths of our radar into the ice. In reviewing the paper, several of the reviewers posited we probably need to see somewhere between 50 and 100 wavelengths. So our wavelength is about six inches. So at the thickest case, it's roughly 50 feet.

Q: That translates to what in volume?

A: We were very conservative in the press release, but if you take basically 100 square kilometers by roughly 50 feet, you get a volume of something like a quarter of a cubic mile, I think it's on that order. It's a considerable amount, but it's not a huge glacier or anything like that.

Q: Can you compare that with something you know?

A: It's a lake. A small lake.

And Clementine is still out there...

Q: Where is Clementine now?

A: The spacecraft, as you know, from the name Clementine, is only supposed to be here for a short period of time and be lost and gone forever, so it was intended for a very short period of time after this lunar mission, did a rendezvous with the earth, and shortly after that was shifted by the moon's gravity and continued a flight which will bring it back near the earth about nine years from now. So it's an 11 year total flight around the sun. So basically it's moving like a little planet around the sun, and it will bring it back close to us in about nine years... It's two years since it left us so it will be another nine years before it's back. But it's not useful right now. The mission is finished.

Q: But unlike it's namesake, it's not lost and gone forever. It will be back?

A: It will be back, but it's not a useful spacecraft any more.