Lunar photo-enhancements reveal alien civilization evidence.

Originally posted by rdunk
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

..........................................................................
In this photo, looks like surface structures!

And therein lies the problem.

In the original photo (below), prior to arianna ruining it by over-contrasting it to the point that the image that once showed a gradient of gray scales was transformed into a stark, almost black-and-white, image.



When the subtle gray scale variations of light intensity are preserved (variations of light intensity that actually do exist in the original image, as seen above), then we can see the craters (plus we can see the boulders that have rolled).

When that variation of light intensity is destroyed by over-contrasting the image (such as the way arianna's image was over-contrasted), then we are left with an artificially stark contrast between dark and light, and that contrast creates false artifacts -- such as craters that now look like they are objects sitting on the surface.

Over-enhancing this image is doing nobody any favors, and is causing us to see things that aren't really there.

Here is a comparison between arianna's images and the original, with arrows pointing to the same features in both:

Originally posted by arianna
My apologies to ArMaP for not replying but over the last two weeks I have been busy on other projects and commitments.

No problems, we all have a life outside ATS (I hope )

In future, I will apply text to some of the images indicating what I see.

That would be great.

There are no tests being applied here but I would be very grateful and appreciative if members would examine the images very carefully to see if they recognize any of the shapes or objects showing in the enhanced views.

I haven't looked at the more recent images, but I will do it.

The 'forced' enhancement procedure I have applied to the images is deliberate and necessary in order to penetrate the layer of 'moondust' that prohibits recognition of surface objects in the published original.

This is where our opinions diverge the most, because I don't see how any change of an image to avoid recognition of something could be reversed without access to the original image.

I have been involved in photography and image processing for over fifty years therefore I should know what I am reviewing in the images.

"Chemical" photography, digital or both?

Also, I am getting a little tired of some members who keep maintaining that all there is on the surface is as described when it is plain to see from the enhanced versions that the details contained in the description are incorrect.

You see, (most of) the people that do not see the things you do have the same feelings about what you say. While it is plain for you to see something, what we (those that do not see the structures you see) see is also plain to us. For us, the description is correct.

If these members wish to carry on with a closed-mind approach that is their perogative.

The same can be said about those that see the structures, because when you say something like "the details contained in the description are incorrect" you are presenting your point of view as the real one.

The 'dashed' lines are not boulder trails and what appears to be 'craters' are not craters. This has been established by viewing the enhanced close-up views where it can be seen that the 'trails' and 'crater' shapes are giving the appearance of being built structures.

This was established only for those that see things that way, you cannot say that something was established when some people accept it but other do not.
And there aren't any close.up views, only resampled images.

Here arianna this is the image use by Soylent Green Is People

One half unenhanced the other side burn tool in gimp 2.6




As you can see more detail shows on the right isde but but its just bumps and dips in the terrain NOT buildings or structures! ANYONE can see that!

OK wmd_2008, try and debunk the unnatural detail showing in the image below.

This enhanced view shows a vast amount of artificial detail on the surface. There are so many structures showing it would be a shame to place text on the image. Some of the structural shapes have most unusual form. As I said previously, it would appear the race of beings that built these structures also use facial representations which they integrate into the constructions and there is no shortage of these representations as they can be seen all over the view. I will post another view later hightlighting some of the areas of interest.

Have a look and see what you think.




Direct link. i985.photobucket.com...

Here is a pseudo 3-D version of the above image which says it all.

Red/cyan glasses needed to view.




Direct link. i985.photobucket.com...

An image processing of the Moon pictures will not get you anywhere, such was done not long ago by another member 'sander?' programs can make it so they look like anything. Overexposing, increasing the contrast, adding filters will just make all sorts of shape and you will think it is aliens,

Even the rock that looks still circular and has the shape of a crater while it is not seemingly, shows how much you can confuse a shape just because it resembles a thing you know. There are no structures in the picture, sorry.

Originally posted by arianna
There are so many structures showing it would be a shame to place text on the image.

You can always post two images.

reply to post by arianna


Well what's natural and what's unnatural, straight lines curves etc etc so give an example on that image of what to you is unnatural can't wait for your reply!

Boulder trails are apparent in a lot of lunar images and if you follow them they usually end at the boulder or material that caused these tracks. So what are you proposing from your analysis? Did these so called structures come before or after the trails were laid down?

An advanced civilization is not real smart if they constructed buildings on a bowling lane.

And if you are claiming that these boulder trails are not real trails but constructed by something humanoid, then they built everywhere on the moon and always had to have boulders close by at the end of these trails.

Maybe they love rock gardens.

Professional, intermediates, and novices in topography can see that there are no structures in these original images.

Originally posted by dcmb1409

Professional, intermediates, and novices in topography can see that there are no structures in these original images.

You'll be very lucky to see any structures in the NASA original. What you may see is a vague outline of a shape that could be a structure. It is only after the original image has been enhanced that the structures and other features come to light.

The image shown below is the full version. The reason I am posting this image is because it is sharper than the cropped version shown above.

There is a host of detail showing in this image which suggests there has been life activity on the moon for a very long time. Before anyone starts to say I am delluded I would ask you to examine every detail in the image very carefully. One couldn't make up what there is to see in this image. The orientation of this view is the same as the NASA original. To view some of the objects and other features in the correct orientation you may have to download the image and rotate it 23 to 30 degrees to the left. The next image I post will highlight some of the objects and also some of the anthropological shapes that form part of the structures.




Direct link. i985.photobucket.com...

reply to post by arianna


I see you are still not posting any explanation of what you see, so I hope you were not lying when you said that you would post images with an explaining text.

You can keep on posting images, if you don't explain what you see I don't think anyone that doesn't see those things will understand what you see.

We need explanations to try to see things as you do, not more examples of things we do not see.

Originally posted by arianna
Anyway, I have sent this image and some other enhanced images to a number of eminent scientists I am in contact with to get them to evaluate the detail that is showing on the lunar surface.

Have you had any answer from those scientists?

There are also plenty of tools out there to determine and explain image manipulation and how to estimate crater sizes from shadow measurements , etc.

ex: (click for larger image)



formula:

For a given crater the Sun is at an elevation a. The quantity measured is the shadow length s. It is then trivial to work out the height h of the crater, measured from the crater floor to the top of the crater rim.

There is a subtly here though. The shadow length observed will only be the same as the measured length s if the crater is viewed directly from above. Otherwise the shadow is foreshortened, and the projected length we measure is shorter than the true length. We need to compensate for this factor, so divide the apparent length of the shadow by the cosine of the crater's selenographic longitude to get the true length.

source: www.astro.ex.ac.uk...

Maybe we can calculate the height of said objects for perspective.

reply to post by arianna


I still see nothing but natural formations even in that image. Please point out what you are seeing. If I used your analysis and techniques on military satellite and recon photo's then we would probably be bombing the mega alien city in the middle of the Sahara desert on Earth.

Manipulating a picture of an Oreo cookie does not give you the recipe and ingredients to make Oreo's at home.

Please explain what you see why and I'll humbly apologize for being slightly snarky.

The image below shows features that many would dismiss and would probably say that what's showing couldn't possibly be, but in this particular case it happens to be true. The validity of the image can be checked with the image posted above.

I offer no explanation text as the features showing in the image are sufficient.




Direct link. i985.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by arianna
I offer no explanation text as the features showing in the image are sufficient.

So, when you said "In future, I will apply text to some of the images indicating what I see" you were only bluffing, or did you change your mind?

reply to post by arianna


I'm sorry, but circling distorted natural formations on a manipulated image is not professional nor is it sufficient to a practiced eye or to make one believe that you offer anything but absurdity in analysis. Corrupting data does not prove a particular point of view nor is it accepted by clients or those whose job it is to provide a realistic representation of the original target and offer it for commercial or military applications.

These circles do not explain what you are seeing. Again the cookie example. An enlargement and color manipulation of a Ritz cracker will probably produce realistic craters and highways from the surface of the cracker but not a realistic interpretation of what the actual product is suppose to represent, thus non productive and anti analytical in its intended usage for the client .

What in the circles makes you see something different than what the original data provides?

Well seeing the Moon is considered to be "dead", then where did all the rocks come from?

Are they all Meteorites, or Asteroids or Comets, that have crash landed?

Considering the Moon is Dead, why does it have hills? Are they rock hills or sand hills? If sand hills How were they "Blown" into shape? Solar wind? When an asteroid crash landed the sonic boom caused a land shift?
But there is no atmosphere to boom?
There is Water on the Moon....did the Comets bring it, like the Earth Theory?
Why hasnt the Solar winds blown all the water away from the Moon, like they say about Mars??
Does the Earth Protect the Moon? Does the Moon Protect the Earth? (probably).
Why does it rotate to show only one side to Earth?

Too many questions, not enough answers.

reply to post by gort51

Too many questions, not enough answers.

Every one of those "questions" has an answer. Some of the "questions" are also not really valid anyway, since they are based on misconceptions in some way or another.

But, if someone cannot comprehend how a planetary body like the Moon, that has existed for over 4 1/2 Billion years, can come to have all the features we see, then I wonder if it's even possible to explain it here on ATS, in such a Forum.