What's going on in Copernicus crater?

This image is a section of the GE image rotated 90 degrees.

In the past I mentioned that some of the views seem too appear as artistic representations of a picture scene.

Have a look at the view and see what you think.



Direct view. i985.photobucket.com...

reply to post by arianna

The art-forms seen on this mountain top and other nearby locations could not have been sculpted out of the landscape by humans.

That is the one thing I agree with, seeing as how these so called "art forms" are natural formations made by geologic means and weathering -- combined with snow and shadows.

Originally posted by arianna
This image is a section of the GE image rotated 90 degrees.

In the past I mentioned that some of the views seem too appear as artistic representations of a picture scene.

Have a look at the view and see what you think.

Direct view. i985.photobucket.com...

Picture scene?


Weathering.

reply to post by arianna


Ah. Yes, it is so clear to everyone now:

The reason is because on this particular mountain top there are so many shapes of figures and faces to observe.

That's All, Folks!!

Move along.....Move along......

reply to post by ProudBird


If only you knew what I know you wouldn't be so negative.

Doesn't anyone do their own research these days?

reply to post by arianna

If only you knew what I know you wouldn't be so negative.

Oh?

Well then. Please share what you really know.


As to the claim of my (or anyone else?) being "negative"...well. Try to put it into a perspective of rationality, please.

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by ProudBird

 

If only you knew what I know you wouldn't be so negative.

Doesn't anyone do their own research these days?

Doesn't anyone support their own claims these days?

Or even clearly state them?

Originally posted by arianna
The art-forms seen on this mountain top and other nearby locations could not have been sculpted out of the landscape by humans. They would not have endured the low temperatures or the altitude.

Once more, how do you know that? Do you know how the climate was at the time?

PS: you have a message.

Wow, this thread still going?

I keep reading mentions of research, study, and expertise in trying to explain distorted images as a scientific fact and proof of said Lunar artwork using reworked images.

Yet the only method I see repeatedly shown is drawn circles around manipulated coloration or saturation and re-sized images of the original image as scientific proof of fact in this claim.

Not a very scientific method nor a professional way of presenting facts by image distortion and manipulation.

Definition of the scientific method:

Scientific method: Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

source: en.wikipedia.org...

I am really glad that our intellegence and military institutions don't use or approve of the method used in this thread. It might satisfy the anomoly searchers but it dosen't work in the real world as far as determining image details and resources on the ground.

Nothing I've seen in the defense of the OP shows empirical and measurable evidence subject to principle of reasoning, such as the water towers, 70 foot cranes, and stone huts. The measurements don't equate in previous arguments and experimentation does not mean manipulation and corruption of image data.

maybe the scientific method will help us to see what the OP sees:

1. Observation - What do "you" see?

2. What is the average size of what you see in those images?

3 What experimentation did you use or try besides corrupted data?

4. What was your testing and modification of hypotheses besides corrupted images from the original source?

Its hard to swallow that the only research being claimed is by using reworked images and circles on a picture and having everyone accept this new scientific method of proof by deception.

reply to post by arianna


Arianna, I'm not sure of the source of the actual photo you looked at. Where it came from may tell you a lot, or not.

There are many mapping photos that were cut and pasted together, they aren't real clear at times. The camera lens has a barrel distortion that it puts on the photos at the edges, it's blurred at the edge and then you have the effect of a wider view of the ground as you see it farther out, compared to near. This distorts the image in the photo. When NASA cut and pasted the photos together, they had whole areas they had missed in photographing the surface of the Moon. They did use the blurred and stretched photos to fill the gaps. They were trying to piece the surface together the best they could, to find areas safe for Lunar landing. You can see the maps they made by looking at the Lunar Index maps.

Taking a photo....and enlarging it too much...can create a really different view of what is there...or not there.

I hope we get to see the newest, low altitude, high definition photos of the Moon's surface that several other countries have made. They used the latest digital camera technology, and much of the distortion is corrected to present a very fine detailed photo....up closer... than ever before.

John

reply to post by arianna


"If only you knew what I know you wouldn't be so negative."
Hahahahha!
Who are you ffs?
Do you come from the moon?
I can't believe you still got people hooked on your crap 19 pages later.
You started with 'cranes' on the moon now art on the mountainside. Wtf???
Accept it there isn't anything living on the moon & stop telling people about art that isn't there because only you can see it. LOL!!!
Sorry if this comes over as being rude or offensive but many other people are saying they can't see your observations as you do & you keep trying to persuade us otherwise.
Obviously we don't know what you do, if we did we'd be seeing what you see......probably.
Peace.

If members and viewers do not like what I am trying to share with them they have the option of moving on. I have not provided much in the way of descriptions with the images I have posted as I felt that what could be viewed in them was self-evident. As for the 'crane' anomaly, I have not even mentioned this object as one cannot be sure of exactly what the object is, only what it could be.

Much of the research I am engaged upon concerns something that scientists up to present have failed to answer. The question arises as to how modern man gained advanced intelligence. Could it be put down to, as many people think, general evolution of the species or did visitors from another world in ancient times land on this planet and assimilate into various earthly civilizations. These space travellers, whilst coming to this planet, would most probably have landed on the moon as well. There is evidence on the lunar surface of ancient space machines and examples of these craft can be easily recognized in some of the lunar images. As I have said before, where ever a civilization travels to they always take their culture and art with them. The artwork shown in this thread was posted in an effort to confirm this fact. The floor of Copernicus crater is liittered with artistic representations as are many places on this planet, but you have to search for them. I am not saying there is definitely a race of beings living on the moon, but the photographic evidence is building up to confirm that this could well be the case.

reply to post by arianna

The question arises as to how modern man gained advanced intelligence.

An even better question is: "How were extraterrestrials able to gain the intelligence to travel between the stars so much faster than humanity, especially given that the Solar System is among the oldest of the third generation stars?"

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by MainLineThis

 

Apparently John Lear is banned from ATS, but possibly active on GLP

I must admit the name doesn't mean that much to me though, I haven't come across it too much.

ETA To the post below: Didn't know that zorgon, thanks for clarifying.

edit on 13/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA

John Lears name doesn't mean that much-I havent come across it to much.

Holy Moly Batman

Wow I have nothing to say to that

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by arianna

 

The question arises as to how modern man gained advanced intelligence.

An even better question is: "How were extraterrestrials able to gain the intelligence to travel between the stars so much faster than humanity, especially given that the Solar System is among the oldest of the third generation stars?"

Maybe this will provide a possible answer.

Have you ever stopped to think that some of us may be related to the descendants of ancient extraterrestrial travellers?

I came across this image captured the PanCam onboard Opportunity during sol 2540. I have cropped the main image and provided a close-up view. Previously in the thread I mentioned that facial representations appear to be an integral part of some building constructions.

Have a look at both the images and you may see what I mean.





Close-up view.




Direct views.

i985.photobucket.com...

i985.photobucket.com...

reply to post by arianna


You do know that's a 25 cm wide (the length is unknown, as the photo doesn't show the other end) rock less than 2 metres from the camera, right?

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by arianna

 

You do know that's a 25 cm wide (the length is unknown, as the photo doesn't show the other end) rock less than 2 metres from the camera, right?

That's priceless.

Good thing to point out Armap.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by arianna

 

You do know that's a 25 cm wide (the length is unknown, as the photo doesn't show the other end) rock less than 2 metres from the camera, right?

Yes, I am fully aware of the scale of things. I have been studying the images returned from the various Mars missions for years, so I should know what I am observing.

The rock shown in the two images gives the viewer the impression that it has a very rough surface texture. Do not dismiss the texture as it is not what it appears to be. I would advise any member who has photographic experience to closely examine what is making up the texture. At this point, I will not say what it is but it does have some relevance to the representations seen on the lunar surface, although in miniature.

Arianna, have you ever seen anything in your entire life that was not artificially covered with humanoid faces?