What's going on in Copernicus crater?

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by arianna

 

You have mentioned many times in this thread that you "know what to look for"

You say "you know" because

The recogntion process as far as the Mars and lunar images are concerned is self-taught over many years

Then you say scientists don't know what to look for.

They learn as they go along just like I have learnt from viewing and examining the images.

Yet the scientists use facts, and critical thinking to aid their search along with many precision instruments.

You use your eyes and imagination, no?

Well looking at what arianna has posted so far eyes 1% imagination 99% would be a fair split!

So what exactly qualifies a thread for The Gray Area or ATS Skunk Works?

The circles could represent some communication between the poster and whats under the soil.

To the debunkers posting here and they know who they are, wouldn't be prepared to accept the real truth of what's on the Moon or Mars even if it was handed to them on a plate. Therefore, I see no point in continuing this thread as the debunkers appear to be having some fun and that's not the idea of a forum.

The research I have been engaged upon has revealed the existence of very tiny people living on Mars. I have also tried to show that there are many structures on the floor of Copernicus crater but I have been accused of manipulating the images to the extent of 'butchering' them. What none of you seem to realize is that the enhancement process is an importamt part of the exploratory process.

Here's something for you to chew on that probably none of you know and that is the descendants of the mature people from Mars as well as living on the Moon are living on Antarctica and have been for thousands of years. This, coupled with undeniable photographic evidence is something for another thread. The camera doesn't lie but some posting in this thread seem to think it does.

Arianna, you've given the "debunkers" [they know who they are] NOTHING to debunk.

You refuse to answer the most basic of questions or point out and specifically describe what it is that you "see". There is nothing to discuss beyond your refusal to support your highly "speculative" claims. You are right... there's no point in continuing. That was made evident many pages ago.

Originally posted by draknoir2
Arianna, you've given the "debunkers" [they know who they are] NOTHING to debunk.

You refuse to answer the most basic of questions or point out and specifically describe what it is that you "see". There is nothing to discuss beyond your refusal to support your highly "speculative" claims. You are right... there's no point in continuing. That was made evident many pages ago.

edit on 20-1-2012 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

Sorry, but you are incorrect. I have made an offer to answer questions.

I was hoping members would have looked carefully at what I presented here and do their own visual research on what there is to see in the images but it would appear that the debunkers couldn't be bothered..

Anyway, let's see what images NASA posts after Curiosity lands on Mars. I hope they will provide material that will prove me correct. If that happens will you still try and debunk what I post?

reply to post by arianna


You have handed nothing on a plate but your delusions of what you think you see in your butchered images nothing more nothing less, drawing circles round 50 + shadows on a picture proves nothing,

Claiming a 15mtr wide rock is not a rock but a structure when everyone else can see its a rock, claiming indentations caused by rolling rocks are not when to everyone else its clear what they are shows more about YOU than the claims you make for the images!

reply to post by arianna

Anyway, let's see what images NASA posts after Curiosity lands on Mars. I hope they will provide material that will prove me correct. If that happens will you still try and debunk what I post?

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the images from Curiosity will leave you convinced that you've been vindicated. The rest of us will continue to see rocks.

reply to post by arianna

coupled with undeniable photographic evidence

Funny how that "evidence" is only found to be "undeniable" by you.

it would appear that the debunkers couldn't be bothered..

Oh, the "debunkers" (everyone but you in this thread it seems) can be bothered--IF there was credible evidence presented. Hell if anything besides photos of mundane rocks were given.

How can what you do be called "research"? All you do is manipulate and look at images.

You don't take into account any scientific information on the moon or Mars.

Research would mean being open to peer review, multiple points of view---more than looking at manipulated photos.

reply to post by draknoir2

So what exactly qualifies a thread for The Gray Area or ATS Skunk Works?

In my opinion this thread should be in Skunk Works.

That or Jokes, Pranks, and Puns.

I have had a very favourable reply from the scientist I contacted who passed the details I gave with the enhancement instructions to other university faculties. I am not going to reveal what the scientist has written only to say that agrees with me that there are definite signs of built structures showing in the original and enhanced images.

So folks, as many of you have questioned what I have posted in this thread you will now have to do your own visual research if you are keen to find out what is really on the surface of the Moon.

Just remember what Armstrong said, "there are places to go beyond belief" and he was perfectly correct.

Conduit ends........

reply to post by arianna


Oh, brother.....!:

I have had a very favourable reply from the scientist I contacted .....

(skip)

I am not going to reveal what the scientist has written only to say that agrees with me....

"...not going to reveal...."?


Well, you just did....the above speaks volumes......

Originally posted by arianna
I have had a very favourable reply from the scientist I contacted who passed the details I gave with the enhancement instructions to other university faculties.

Could you tell us what other faculties are those? Thanks in advance.

I am not going to reveal what the scientist has written only to say that agrees with me that there are definite signs of built structures showing in the original and enhanced images.

Does he see things in a different way in the "enhanced" images, or does he see the same things, only "enhanced"?

So folks, as many of you have questioned what I have posted in this thread you will now have to do your own visual research if you are keen to find out what is really on the surface of the Moon.

To be honest, nothing you posted changed my situation, I will keep on looking at the images in the same way I did before.

Originally posted by arianna
I have had a very favourable reply from the scientist I contacted who passed the details I gave with the enhancement instructions to other university faculties. I am not going to reveal what the scientist has written only to say that agrees with me that there are definite signs of built structures showing in the original and enhanced images.

So folks, as many of you have questioned what I have posted in this thread you will now have to do your own visual research if you are keen to find out what is really on the surface of the Moon.

Just remember what Armstrong said, "there are places to go beyond belief" and he was perfectly correct.

Conduit ends........

If its was favourable you would be shouting it from the rooftops as they say! so looks like just more BS UNLESS of course you sent it to YOURSELF

reply to post by arianna

Conduit ends........

Easier to walk away than admitting you're wrong I suppose.

Conduit opens....

In this thread I received many negative comments about structures being on the moon. Some maintained I needed glasses (which I do wear), other members maintained I was delusional and some even said that I should see a psychiatrist.

Well, after watching this video all those who thought I was completely bonkers may be persuaded to think very differently. The video gives the viewer a good insight as to exactly what is on the moon and its real colour. It's definitely worth spending time to watch the whole production


youtu.be...

Originally posted by arianna
Well, after watching this video all those who thought I was completely bonkers may be persuaded to think very differently.

I don't think (and didn't think at the time) that you are "completely bonkers", but that video doesn't change a thing for me in relation to the Moon, it only serves to make me think that José Escamilla is incapable of understanding perspective and, as a researcher, is useless.

The video gives the viewer a good insight as to exactly what is on the moon and its real colour.

It shows what is on the Moon in exactly the same way all Moon photos published to date show, I don't think any of his interpretations of what we see is correct.

And he is also wrong about the colour, as those images are not real colour.

The camera had 6 filters, and while one covered visible light (from 400 nm to 950) and one was for a visible wavelength (415 nm), the other four filters were for wavelengths outside visible light (750 nm, 900 nm, 950 nm and 1000 nm).

Having said that, why did they called it "Ultraviolet/Visible" camera? Judging by those filters it could only capture infrared and visible light, but not ultraviolet.

Or am I mixing things up?

reply to post by ArMaP


Ultra-violet has a shorter wavelength than infra-red. Therefore, the wavelength numbers you quoted are for infra-red. Why they should have said the camera was for ultra-violet/visible spectrum is beyond me. Maybe, whoever published the data made a slight slip up.

Anyway, I appreciate the fact that many members were not able to see what I could see in Copernicus crater. I am still searching for better material of this location in the hope of posting some better quality images.

The image below is from the Apollo 17 mission and was captured on 70mm colour film. I have increased the colour saturation to emphasize the colour boundaries. The brightness and contrast levels have also been increased. The view covers a huge area of terrain and the camera altitude was 126km. Three larger sectional views are available at the Direct links below. If you look closely it can be seen that the surface is littered with built structures, some are easier to see than others. The location is given as FIRSOV crater.

Have a look and see if you can spot them. Should you have any difficulty in recognizing the structures I will post an image showing where the more prominent structures are located on the image(s).





Direct links to sectional views.

i985.photobucket.com...

i985.photobucket.com...

i985.photobucket.com...

reply to post by arianna


Beyond the craters in this false color image I see nothing in the way of "structures".

Nor faces for that matter.

Originally posted by arianna
Ultra-violet has a shorter wavelength than infra-red. Therefore, the wavelength numbers you quoted are for infra-red. Why they should have said the camera was for ultra-violet/visible spectrum is beyond me. Maybe, whoever published the data made a slight slip up.

I think that a "slip up" is unlikely, as all the references to that camera have that information about it, something that would be detected if it was a slip up.

The brightness and contrast levels have also been increased.

That's the problem. As long as you keep on altering the photos with changes of contrast and brightness, you will always be looking at things that are not real.

And no, I don't see any "structures" beside the natural ones, and I have never seen any sign of artificial structures during the years (at least two) I have known this photo.

Edit: for those interested in it, I think that's photo AS17-150-23086.