What's going on in Copernicus crater?

reply to post by undo


Thanks for the star.

I went looking for the "blue tubes" area on Kaguya/Selene photos, and, apparently, the "tubes" are the sides of a crater wall.

Originally posted by ArMaP

i'm puzzled as to how you made those connections in regards to such a wide area...

I,m enjoying this thread like in the good old days, when planet internet wast facebooked to death, when discussion was actually coherent and composed of more than totally justified one liners , its good to see some of the "big guns" still lurking around, pushing this ship forward, I appreciate and admire all of your efforts.

On topic:
While, anomalies are evident on some of those pictures, proving or even swaying some of the hard core skeptics is a waste of energies and debating skills, those pictures and many others have been constructed and deconstructed on more than one occasion, still, someone has to at least implant the seed of doubt every once in a while, and for that alone this thread is worthy.

I see the anomalies, and dream of one magical day, when the vaults open and the truth floods us all in the bliss only knowledge can, and all they have hidden finally breaks its bonds and turn this mess upside down once more.

the moon has all the mysteries one can dream of, when they finally decide to tell us of all the wonders they have found up there, this world will be changed forever, lets hope it is within our lifetimes...

reply to post by TheOneEyedProphet

I see the anomalies

Finally. Would you please identify an anomaly on one of Arianna's images and explain what you think it is?

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by ArMaP
*snipped pic*

i'm puzzled as to how you made those connections in regards to such a wide area...

no worries, i had rushed without paying much attention, i can c the similarities..

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by arianna
This should interest many and slience those that are skeptical.

I doubt it.

You keep on posting images in which most people see nothing, you don't provide any help to those that do not see the things you see, you just dump manipulated images after manipulated images without any explanation or hint about what you see, why do you think things are like you think they are, etc.

You don't use higher resolution images (it took me less than 5 minutes to find an image that's almost 10 times bigger than the one you posted, here), you change the contrast to make them look like bad photocopies, with too much contrast, and then, when people point out the problems with the images you posted you pick another image and start all over again.

Why don't you stop, make things in a more scientific manner (for someone that is always taking about scientific studies you act in a very strange way) and provide to all people reading these threads with all the information they need? For example, what do you see on the image you posted? In what do you support that idea? Any other, related information that you can provide about it, etc.

PS: a sceptic isn't silenced when someone shows more of the same, unless he/she gets so bored as he/she falls asleep. A sceptic is always wanting new information to see if his/her ideas change because of that, sceptics are not fixed in any specific idea, they just want to understand how things are.

PPS: happy holidays.

The image used for the above view was a copy of the print shown earlier in the thread. This print, NASA LRC iii123-h3, was produced from a very large negative and is the image I used to produce the enhancement. Now I know you're going to say the image is low resolution and is not as good as the high resolution image (3123-H3) for which you provided the link but I found the low-res print produced a much better enhancement than the hi-res image. I spent a couple of hours on the hi-res image and could not produce the same degree of quality as produced by the low-res image.

Take a look at the two versions, namely the print produced earlier in the thread and the image you provided the link for. Although the images show the same detail the quality is not the same. Therefore, these two prints must have been produced on two different occassions. The image I used is fairly clean but the hi-res version looks as though the surplus water was removed from the negative using a dirty squeegee and this is showing as smear marks all over the print.

I have produced a pseudo 3D version of this view that reveals what is really on the floor of the crater..

I am now starting to see the alien faced huts. I took the highest resolution image and and applied some filters and then I converted to a jpeg and then printed out on an inkjet printer but before...now this is important...before the ink dried, I folded the paper in half...opened up the paper and rescanned back to the high res format.

If you try it, you will see a remarkable civilization on the moon.

reply to post by ArMaP


yep, the color clementine version of it, also shows it's part of a crater wall. that didn't stop me from speculating about why it was a tube, and why it was blue, and why it had interesting stuff around it, and why there so many of these tubes all over the far side, and why why why. you don't have to reanswer all this, as we have already had this discussion years ago lol (except for the blue part, which this thread has covered).

there's even one "tube" that appears to have collapsed in on itself, while shooting, who knows how far above the surface, and then folding back over itself before cooling, making it look like a coiled cobra, about to strike.

Originally posted by arianna
Now I know you're going to say the image is low resolution and is not as good as the high resolution image (3123-H3) for which you provided the link but I found the low-res print produced a much better enhancement than the hi-res image. I spent a couple of hours on the hi-res image and could not produce the same degree of quality as produced by the low-res image.

Don't you find that unexpected? Did you made any tests to try to understand what that happened? Do you have any theory to explain that?

Take a look at the two versions, namely the print produced earlier in the thread and the image you provided the link for. Although the images show the same detail the quality is not the same.

No, the detail cannot be the same when you have a photo that is 5 times as bigger than the other, and as you can see in the following images, the detail is not the same.



Unless you define detail in a way that I am not used to.

The image I used is fairly clean but the hi-res version looks as though the surplus water was removed from the negative using a dirty squeegee and this is showing as smear marks all over the print.

That's a characteristic of the Lunar Orbiter photos, because of the way they were taken and developed.

I have produced a pseudo 3D version of this view that reveals what is really on the floor of the crater..

This is one of the things I don't understand. How can anyone say that he/she is making a "serious scientific study" and say things like that, as if he/she could not be wrong.

PS: have you received any answer from the scientists you sent the photos to?

reply to post by undo


Now I'm confused, do you see those as tubes or as part of the crater wall?

arianna (or anyone, really), do you want to do a little test?

Do you see any statues, faces, etc. in the following image?


Thanks in advance.

reply to post by ArMaP


I am quite prepared to accept the test on condition the image can be referenced and downloaded.

reply to post by arianna

I am quite prepared to accept the test on condition the image can be referenced and downloaded.

Why is that relevant? You claimed that the photos you posted were "artwork." What if Armap is posting artwork and claiming it is a photo? Are you getting it yet?

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by undo

 

Now I'm confused, do you see those as tubes or as part of the crater wall?

those are lava tubes on the crater wall.
thought we already verified that.

Those of you who can see things other than rocks, shadows & other natural things must be on acid or something.
Who do you think put a crane on the moon then? Hahahaha!
So many important things going on in the world today that actually affect us & you're looking for faces & statues on the moon?
& a crane. Hahahaha!:lol.

Originally posted by supamoto
Those of you who can see things other than rocks, shadows & other natural things must be on acid or something.
Who do you think put a crane on the moon then? Hahahaha!
So many important things going on in the world today that actually affect us & you're looking for faces & statues on the moon?
& a crane. Hahahaha!:lol.

Do you believe everything that NASA and other space institutions tell us?

From your comments I assume that you have probably never done any visual research of Mars or the Moon.

If you had you would probably not be making these kind of comments.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by arianna

 

I am quite prepared to accept the test on condition the image can be referenced and downloaded.

Why is that relevant? You claimed that the photos you posted were "artwork." What if Armap is posting artwork and claiming it is a photo? Are you getting it yet?

No, I am not getting it.

Information about the location of the image is very relevant. For all we know ArMaP could have photographed a concrete path. The image has to be verified and downloaded from source before any analysis can take place.

reply to post by arianna

Information about the location of the image is very relevant. For all we know ArMaP could have photographed a concrete path. The image has to be verified and downloaded from source before any analysis can take place.

And yet you provided no information about your "artwork" and expected people to analyze it. For all we knew, it could have been the original photo of boulders. Wait, it was, yet you called it "artwork." Even then, no-one saw any "statues."

reply to post by arianna


The test is to see if you can see structures and/or faces on that photo (it's really a photo), and I thought that someone interested in doing serious scientific research would accept a test to see if the processes he/she uses work as expected or not.

Originally posted by arianna
Information about the location of the image is very relevant. For all we know ArMaP could have photographed a concrete path. The image has to be verified and downloaded from source before any analysis can take place.

Would it be fair to ask then Arianna, that for your next photo analysis (or one of the existing ones you have already completed), to provide a detailed step-by-step checklist of the process you are taking to arrive at the current conclusion that there are statue artworks on the moon? Would it also be possible to include the original link to the nasa site where the original image is downloaded from and describe all the minor steps in your enhancement process, so that someone else could replicate the same results?

Looking forward to your next analysis or even a more in depth look at one of the previous photo analysis's.