What's going on in Copernicus crater?

Originally posted by ArMaP

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

.

I am sorry ArMaP but I cannot possibly agree with you on that point. The idea in any form of research is to use all the tools available to come to a reasonable and definitive conclusion. You may not like me changong the luminence or colour data of an image but it is a major part of the research process. The detail showing in these images is very real I can assure you. Stating this may upset some people due to their religious beliefs or other convictions, but the following has to be said, there could well be a very large alien presence living on the moon whether we like it or not. Who was it that warned off the Apollo 11 astronauts?

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.

I am talking here about built structures, not natural rock structures or formations. Try viewing the images with an optical magnifyer, it does help. I have checked and double checked these images and the image used is definitely is AS17-150-23087. This is not the 23086 image, although it is similar. There are definite built structures all over the place and some of them are quite large.

Of course, I have to make allowances as some people may not wish to admit they are there. If members are unable to recognize the larger structures I will post some images showing their location.

Originally posted by arianna
I am sorry ArMaP but I cannot possibly agree with you on that point. The idea in any form of research is to use all the tools available to come to a reasonable and definitive conclusion.

The problem is when you use the equivalent of a sledgehammer to pin a nail on a plaster wall; it's possible, but the most likely is that it will end in damage.

You may not like me changong the luminence or colour data of an image but it is a major part of the research process. The detail showing in these images is very real I can assure you.

If you change the image in a way that changes the detail, then the detail becomes false, as you changed it.

Look at this video to see what happens with the image data. The points in the 3D graph on the right show how the pixels in the image are distributed on the RGB colour space, and you can see how changing the brightness, contrast and saturation can reduce the amount of data in the image.



In that video I exaggerated on purpose the amount of brightness, contrast and saturation applied, to make it more noticeable. You can change brightness, contrast and saturation without losing any data, but you need to see how much you can change, as it depends on the image being worked on.

Blindly changing some values may result in too much data loss, and one easy way of seeing that is by counting how many colours the image shows. If you end up with less colours than you had in the original then something went wrong.

Stating this may upset some people due to their religious beliefs or other convictions, but the following has to be said, there could well be a very large alien presence living on the moon whether we like it or not.

It's possible, although, I think, not very likely.

Who was it that warned off the Apollo 11 astronauts?

Nobody.

Try viewing the images with an optical magnifyer, it does help.

That's not a good idea, if I do that I will see the elements that make up the pixels.

There are definite built structures all over the place and some of them are quite large.

If there are any built structures then they would be quite large, as the resolution of that photo is not that big.

Of course, I have to make allowances as some people may not wish to admit they are there.

Or they do not really see them, as you should expect by now. Although I have seen most of what you have said that you see in other photos, I didn't tried it on this one.

reply to post by arianna

There are definite built structures all over the place and some of them are quite large.

If they are there, point them out to us blind folks who don't see these "large" artificial structures that are "all over the place", please.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by arianna

 

There are definite built structures all over the place and some of them are quite large.

If they are there, point them out to us blind folks who don't see these "large" artificial structures that are "all over the place", please.

Yes, they are definitely there and at present I am in the process of preparing some images indicating the location of some of the structures. In fact, there are thousands upon thousands on the surface but due to the camera viewpoint being 126km above the surface the smaller structures cannot be positively identified. This can only be achieved with a very high degree of zooming in. Fortunately, the larger structures can be identified and I will indicate their location in the image(s).

reply to post by ArMaP



As a matter of interest ArMaP, what kind of evidence would you like me to provide to convince you of structures being on the lunar surface? Would the evidence possibly be that of statues, buildings, pipes or something else?

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by ArMaP

 

As a matter of interest ArMaP, what kind of evidence would you like me to provide to convince you of structures being on the lunar surface? Would the evidence possibly be that of statues, buildings, pipes or something else?

I don't know about ArMap, but that would be a start for me...

I just can't see anything. All I see is a bunch of static. Sorry.

Sorry.

reply to post by arianna


Anything, as long as it looks clearly artificial.

I have prepared these three images for starters. If you look at the long strip image shown above you will see a large crater in the center of the view. On the upper rim is a large object. The images shown below are close up views of the object.

The red arrow is pointing to what would appear to be a very large construction. The yellow arrows are pointing to smaller structures and these are only a small number of many. It is not easy to get good close-up views as the camera to surface distance at the time of capture was 126km. At present this is the best close-up views I can achieve.

The second image is the same view as the first without the arrows.

Here is a more distant view of the location seen above.

reply to post by arianna


I see pixelated rocks and craters, light and shadows in a false colored image in your post with all the arrows...


No artificial anything to my eyes.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by arianna

 

I see pixelated rocks and craters, light and shadows in a false colored image in your post with all the arrows...

No artificial anything to my eyes.

edit on 7/30/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: sp

This is one of the problems when people say they only see pixelation in an image. The art of recognizing the features is making sense of groups of pixels that are of the same or similar colour. Also, the angle of overhead viewing plays a vital part. If you look closely you may notice that there are some objects with very similar shapes. I also have to say that a great deal of patience is needed when examining the images. If you just look at an image, as you would any picture, you will probably not visually comprehend the artificial detail.

Originally posted by arianna
The red arrow is pointing to what would appear to be a very large construction. The yellow arrows are pointing to smaller structures and these are only a small number of many.

Why do you think those are artificial structures?

At present this is the best close-up views I can achieve.

Why don't you use a higher resolution photo, like this one or this one?

PS: the last link is from a NASA site that puts the requested files online for just a short time (I think it's one day or two), so the image is supposed to disappear. If it does, just request it again, if needed.

Here is a crop from the image available at the second link given by ArMaP. I have not applied any enhancement to the image except to reduce the size of the crop from 910 pixels to 550 pixels. Even in this feint image the structural anomaly on the rim of the crater can be observed. There is no doubt about it. Whist investigating this high resolution image and adjusting the contrast level I noticed that there are some other interesting groups of structural anomalies which will require further investigation.

reply to post by ArMaP


Arinna showed a natural rock looking like a pharaoh on Mars surrounded by completely natural cliffs no ruins or remains of temples,and to her this pharaoh was man made while all around it is natural, so don't wonder why she continues to call these formations artifical.

Originally posted by arianna
Here is a crop from the image available at the second link given by ArMaP. I have not applied any enhancement to the image except to reduce the size of the crop from 910 pixels to 550 pixels. Even in this feint image the structural anomaly on the rim of the crater can be observed. There is no doubt about it. Whist investigating this high resolution image and adjusting the contrast level I noticed that there are some other interesting groups of structural anomalies which will require further investigation.

"Structural anomaly"? "No doubt about it"?

On a moon full of craters?

Seriously?

You can't possibly say what that is-- besides it being a lighter spot on the image --without a lot more information and higher resolution photos.

C'mon.

A few posts ago you offered to provide proof...

of statues, buildings, pipes or something else

...but you have not done so anywhere in this entire thread yet.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


Firstly I would ask, can you do any better?

You seem to be a rather impatient person and want results immediately. Well, if that is what you require, you're barking up the wrong tree. These type of visual investigations take time and a lot of patience.

When I referred to 'pipes' and other objects, I was asking a question, not stating a fact. To find such objects, one needs to have a great deal of dedication in making a search for such objects.

Yes, I will agree with you that the moon has many craters and a number of them are definitely artificial. Now I know you will not agree with that statement, but it's true. There are also many small conical pits that are artificial. Some of the pits have statues in them.

The area under investigation at present is the raw 23087 image. The raw image gives the impression that there is not much to see. I have now researched the area in question and can tell you that there are thousands of structures showing on the surface. I will post my findings shortly, so I would ask you to have a little patience.

The green rectangle in this image is the area under investigation. I will post some images of this area later.

The yellow arrow is pointing to what appears to be a large arch-like structure. The red arrow is pointing to a structure in a crater.

Originally posted by arianna
The green rectangle in this image is the area under investigation. I will post some images of this area later.

The yellow arrow is pointing to what appears to be a large arch-like structure. The red arrow is pointing to a structure in a crater.

Here you go, I can post some pictures of that area right now in high resolution from the LROC.

Anyone can follow along using their mapping link at LROC Quick Maps The coordinates for that area are: 4.96 Lat and 112.5 Long

Here we have it at 32 meters per pixel. They don't have the whole area mapped yet, but they do have a large chunk that you indicated in your rectangle above:



Zooming in further to 8 meters per pixel:



Then at 4 meters per pixel:



You can zoom in even further if you want. Lots of rocks, bolders hills, craters........didn't see any artificial structures however.

Same with the crater to the north...

I think the good folks at the Arizona State University that take, manage and post these high resolution photographs would have noticed something there......

reply to post by eriktheawful


Thank you for your post and the images. They are much appreciated.

I knew the LROC images were available. Unfortunately, they are direct overhead views and not oblique views but they could be very useful for the recognition of object groups.

The area I am researching at present is looking good with many closely-grouped structures showing. I am sure one of the main reasons why people cannot spot these structural features is due to the fact that the indigenous population are 'masters of deception'. They are excellent at applying camouflage to their structures when viewed from a distance. I have also noticed they create the impression of faces on the landscape and have found that many of these facial representations are either individual structures or groups of structures. In the oblique view it can be observed that some of these representations would seem to be large head statues These type of statues can also be observed at many other lunar locations.

I feel that if the people who view the images, before release of them into the public domain, knew of these features they would probably not make mention of them due to internal protocols.