The Moon Thread: Photos and Comments. [HOAX]

reply to post by mister.old.school


This is a false statement. I'll leave it here.

Originally posted by Phage
The webpage with the Moon photo was last modified on October 17, 2007. According to the EXIF data on the original image it was taken on April 19,2005. As such an expert in photography I'm surprised you were not able to determine that.

The moonbase did not come from NASA. It is from Space 1999, a dreadful series from the mid 1970's (not 1999). You're right. It isn't exactly "photoshopped". It's a model.

edit on 11/16/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I don't care who modified what when.

The photo of that moonbase is not a model because its hue saturation covers the entire spectrum, there are inner lights and colors that are not visible on the surface. It's a real photo, that somebody merely used.

And you and I are both entitled to have our opinions.

However, I do want to thank you for calling me back to the Lunar Photo of the Day page. Wow, what I found there, I've spent four hours checking into. I always wanted to know what that dark lump was on the fact; and now I can see it!

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by shechaiyah
And this past January 20th, there was an eclipse of the Moon; so I saved off some photos of it.

Only two of the images you sourced are all from the same date.

amandabauer.blogspot.com...

www.flickr.com...

acidcow.com...
(several images down)

It doesn't matter that I get images from different places, okay?


Shech--

Originally posted by predator0187
The moon appears to be different sizes because there is variation in the orbit. There are times it is closer and vice versa, because it is so close in comparison to the sun the moon appears to change in size. Just perspective.

Pred...

The Moon's orbit doesn't vary; it's nearly a perfect circle.
Moon orbit near perfect circle

What varies is the distance from the Moon to the camera, depending on the location of the camera on our planet and relative to the Moon's surface. This is what I notice.

Shech--

Now to proceed. SKEW.

Wow. What exciting photos these are: first, the one that Phage referred me to on the Lunar Photo of the Day site for 10/10/25, and secondly, one that John Lear sent to me. Both are examples of SKEWED photos.

LPOD 101025



There is such a thing as UP and DOWN; this photo is 90 degrees off. So, that's the first thing that has to be fixed. Secondly, its contrast is undeveloped; so I relight all 127 pixels and then I saturate with some colors that will bring up details. The rest is just using light and contrast to focus because the camera's F-stop is set to infinite, so I have to focus manually.

I've always wondered what this structure looks like; and now we can see that it's very very old and grubby. Following down the gravel path lower right, the facade is only about 60 ft tall (6 stories) if human figures are 6ft tall. And since this is a night-time photo, I added hues so artificial illumination shows up. The "crater" at top appears to be an atrium for the inner structural sphere extending all the way into the inner crust.

The ground is covered with gravel and appears to be a sculpted entry into a building with the figure of a horse or DRAGON guarding the door. Fabulous! Thank you so much, Phage, for calling attention to this photo to work on.



Here's a different example of SKEW, a photo taken at such an angle that everything is blurred. Where this photo was located and taken I have no idea; but it's full of moving people, most of them Black and what I observe is that the White people stay on the inner crustal sphere and the Black peopole are left to occupy the outer sphere. Maybe they're more resilient and less dependent on atmosphere; but the Moon has a Black-dominant culture as a whole.

Of course, each person sees what he or she expects to see. I try to keep an open mind, without expectations so I can DISCOVER what's there.

Shech--
101117, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by wdkirk
I agree with Phage. Being an avid fan of Space 1999 when I was young, that moon base photo is from that movie.

2nd LIne

Series, crap program with an even crapper premise but I had a couple of die-cast eagles that made great toys.

Originally posted by shechaiyah


Here's a different example of SKEW, a photo taken at such an angle that everything is blurred. Where this photo was located and taken I have no idea; but it's full of moving people, most of them Black and what I observe is that the White people stay on the inner crustal sphere and the Black peopole are left to occupy the outer sphere. Maybe they're more resilient and less dependent on atmosphere; but the Moon has a Black-dominant culture as a whole.

Of course, each person sees what he or she expects to see. I try to keep an open mind, without expectations so I can DISCOVER what's there.

Shech--
101117, 11:21 AM

edit on 17-11-2010 by shechaiyah because: Error in file name.

What are the dimensions and scale in this photo? The people you see are 10cm tall? or 480 meter? Can you point one for us?

btw:Isnt this a part from one of those old moon photos taken in the 60ties?

reply to post by realeyes


RealEyes, I like this photo you took because you can see the Moon's KEEL in it, clearly. Thanks you for showing up with it.

Also, because I want to be able to orient myself N/S, I'm going to rotate your picture 45 degrees so the North Pole is at the top. Duh.

I'll bring it back this afternoon, with colors and depth and like that.

I like it when people bring me their own work, for me to play with.


Shech--

reply to post by Lunica



Here is what NASA SAYS the dimensions are.

NASA SAYS--


I think NASA is nuts; but I'm in no position to argue with them.

We're going to have to INTUIT what the dimensions are, probably.


Shech--

reply to post by Thepreye



The program might have been phony and mocked up, but that photo is not, in my opinion.

If it had been created by a private individual, there would be a copyright on it. There is none.

Therefore, it belongs to the people who do not copyright their photos. Now, who would that be?

NASA.


Shech--

Wow. realeyes, you nave a magnificant photo here. What fun I have had with it.



Here's my narrative, working on it:

Oh what an amazing photo this is! Resolution is extremely FINE. ... The [lightened and highlighted] WEIGHTED KEEL is clearly seen from this angle, and its mass is what keeps Moon in position with respect to the earth like the keel on a sailboat. I love amateur astronomers and their non-standard equipment! ... Now, let's add in some color-hues. ... Okay the whole thing is showing its colors in the light; and there are two close-ups of the SoPole and lower sector at the bottom. Also visible are pathways around the circumference. ... Wow. Now, why haven't we known there are people on the Moon? Because the Powers That Be signed Treaties with the then-Owners of the Moon, the Orions, that forbid OUR [read: "ordinary human"] knowing. ... Remember, the NASA camera lens F-stop is set to "infinite" so what we have here [in the closeups] is layer-upon-layer of images all on top of each other: up close, midground and distant. ... Notice around the "middle" there are human walking-PATHS easy to pick out and highlight intersecting and deriving structural strength from the keel. What a FINE photo! You can see everything. I've marked FIVE HUMAN PATH LEVELS, P1, P2, P3, P4, P5. ... My question. IF--IF--IF the Moon is 2100 miles in diameter, a quarter of a million miles out, HOW IS ALL THIS VISIBLE DETAIL, visible? I can't answer, and the NASA distances and dimension are simply ABSURD, in my judgment.

reply to post by shechaiyah


I can't see what you are referring to in those photos.

Can you highlight or circle what you find anomalous please?

In regard to the image posted just above, what are human path levels?

Thankyou.

reply to post by _Highlander_


Do you know what a WALKING PATH is?

Look! In the photo you can see LEVELS where there are paths going across the sphere.

I can't help you any further than that. Sorry.


Shech--

reply to post by shechaiyah



So why did you not say walking path instead of human path levels?

Your sarcasm was not nessecary, and I did look and saw nothing, so I looked again and still see nothing.

You are not going to get very far posting images and not helping us see what you see.

It wasn't sarcasm at all.

I'm struggling for accurate language; so why is my language "wrong"?

I don't understand. What's wrong with "path"?

I see places for "paths." Is there something wrong with that in your mind?

I cannot LOOK for you. If you don't see it, you don't see it.


Shech--

reply to post by shechaiyah



I am unfamilair with the term 'Human Path Level' being used to term what I would call a 'Footpath', 'Sidewalk' or even 'Walking Path", your use of the word 'Human' in front of it was what is confusing.

How do you know only humans walk on it?

If you prefer, I'll limit my speech to the term "hominids."

However, I have yet to see any hominid on our Moon except human.

And I don't understand why words are an issue here.

I come here with photos, to share data, so the words are extra anyway.


Shech--

Originally posted by shechaiyah
And you and I are both entitled to have our opinions.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Your insistence that a proven film-still from a TV series is an actual photo of a complex base on the moon belies your inability to view any photographic evidence with objectivity, much less the faux expertise you espouse.

Please stop this ridiculous charade before you embarrass yourself further.

I am entitled to my opinion and my interpretation of the facts that I see. That the photo originated as an uncopyrighted NASA photo is my opinion, based on the FACT the photo shows all indications of being a genuine photo with deep hue saturations below the visible level--and not a painted model.

I don't believe I'm the one being ridiculous; furthermore, this thread has moved on to other photos, which you appear to be ignoring in your haste.

Let's be polite, okay? If you don't like my photo threads, and there are only two of them, you are welcome to skip my work and find other amusements.

Shech--

Originally posted by shechaiyah
I don't believe I'm the one being ridiculous; furthermore, this thread has moved on to other photos, which you appear to be ignoring in your haste.

The evidence one presents, especially when offering analysis, depends on the credibility one portrays. Subsequent analysis of additional photos are highly suspect, if not easily dismissed, when credibility has been proven to be suspect.

You've portrayed a core misunderstanding of digital imagery and the artifacts introduced by JPEG compression.

You've demonstrated deception when composing your composite of eclipse imagery (three different dates presented as all the same).

You refuse to believe a proven photo of a model used for a TV show is not a real base on the moon.

There is no point in following your analysis of additional photos. Your analysis is wrong at best, and you're being purposefully deceptive at worst.