What's going on in Copernicus crater?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by arianna

 

No I am from the UK and work in the building trade but as photography has been my hobby for 30+ yrs know I can see when people like YOU dont really have a clue what you are doing to an image.

Take this for instance


i985.photobucket.com...

Can you post a link to the picture before you *&^%£" it up

I know exactly what I am doing with this 1970s high resolution image.

The current LROC views are not really suitable as the majority of them are 'top-down' views which lack any form of perspective. The enhancing of an image is part of the process to 'bring out' the detail which is contained in the downloaded original but due to its flatness the detail cannot be visualized. What can be seen in the high-res image after enhancement gives the viewer the impression that pixelization has taken place. In fact, what has really taken place is that the form of the unseen detail has been reinforced. If you download the image I posted and zoom in you will see that no pixelization has taken place in the image.

The image can be directly downloaded at this direct link. (921.7KB)

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The high resolution version is available here but you may have to request it.

eol.jsc.nasa.gov... (1.2MB)

In this image I have circled some of the structures on the surface. At first I thought the central feature was an arch-like structure. After enhancing another view it would appear that this feature is a solid structure with an arched roof.

See Direct link below for full view.





Direct view:

i985.photobucket.com...

When I was persuing an honours degree one of the university professors said that if you research and find something of interest you should look for verification from alternative sources to back it up

He was right. Here is the verification from another image source confirming there are structures on the moon.

The image is a crop from AS17-151-23185. I have not applied any burn enhancement to the view as it was not necessary. The features are self-evident and the facial representations are built structures.

Full view at Direct link.





Direct link:

i985.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by arianna
In fact, what has really taken place is that the form of the unseen detail has been reinforced.

There's no unseen detail on the photos, all the detail is visible, obviously.

But you are right, what you call enhancements do not create pixelization, they remove the more subtle shades of grey, making it look like a bad photocopy.

Originally posted by arianna
At first I thought the central feature was an arch-like structure. After enhancing another view it would appear that this feature is a solid structure with an arched roof.

Do you mean the smaller crater?

Even if it's "top down" view, why don't you do as that university professor said and use a LROC photo? If there's anything there you should still see it, even without perspective, right?

PS: in this case we have two photos that show that area, why don't you make a 3D image from those two?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by arianna
In fact, what has really taken place is that the form of the unseen detail has been reinforced.

There's no unseen detail on the photos, all the detail is visible, obviously.

But you are right, what you call enhancements do not create pixelization, they remove the more subtle shades of grey, making it look like a bad photocopy.

There is unseen data in images. If the view is 'flat' (i,e., lacking contrast) the finer detail will not be effectively realized.

I would agree that the greys change their value like all other shades as well, but the loss is worth it to observe features that would normally not be recognizable.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by arianna
At first I thought the central feature was an arch-like structure. After enhancing another view it would appear that this feature is a solid structure with an arched roof.

Do you mean the smaller crater?

Even if it's "top down" view, why don't you do as that university professor said and use a LROC photo? If there's anything there you should still see it, even without perspective, right?

PS: in this case we have two photos that show that area, why don't you make a 3D image from those two?

I am referring to the large object set on a bright circular base located on the rim of the crater.

I will look into the 3D idea when I have time.

Originally posted by arianna
There is unseen data in images. If the view is 'flat' (i,e., lacking contrast) the finer detail will not be effectively realized.

A well configured monitor can show all the shades of grey an image can have, no unseen data anywhere.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by arianna
There is unseen data in images. If the view is 'flat' (i,e., lacking contrast) the finer detail will not be effectively realized.

A well configured monitor can show all the shades of grey an image can have, no unseen data anywhere.

My display device shows all shades of grey perfectly. Yes, I agree that the data is there in a 'flat' image but a degree of adjustment is required to show the darker areas which also includes the darker grey areas.

Originally posted by arianna


I know exactly what I am doing with this 1970s high resolution image.

The current LROC views are not really suitable as the majority of them are 'top-down' views which lack any form of perspective. The enhancing of an image is part of the process to 'bring out' the detail which is contained in the downloaded original but due to its flatness the detail cannot be visualized. What can be seen in the high-res image after enhancement gives the viewer the impression that pixelization has taken place. In fact, what has really taken place is that the form of the unseen detail has been reinforced. If you download the image I posted and zoom in you will see that no pixelization has taken place in the image.

The image can be directly downloaded at this direct link. (921.7KB)

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The high resolution version is available here but you may have to request it.

eol.jsc.nasa.gov... (1.2MB)

#

Sorry the LRO images are not any good, are YOU serious at a resloution of around 60 cm/ pixel or better you say they are no good are you really as stupid as your statement

Lets look at some facts about one of your images AS17-151-23185

From the NASA site
Mission: 17
Magazine: 151
Magazine Letter: OO
Revolution: 3
Latitude / Longitude: 10.5° N / 110° E
Lens Focal Length: 80 mm
Camera Tilt: 56°
Camera Azimuth: 4
Camera Altitude: 57 km


SO what you are claiming is that an image from a Hasselblad at 57KM above the Moon is better than LRO pictures REALLY

On most of the LRO images the sun is at an angle we can see shadows of small rocks etc you really are deluded in the claims you make!

reply to post by wmd_2008


If you had read what I said you would know what I'm referring to. The majority of LROC are not suitable as they only give a "top-down" view. The images I am posting here are oblique or angled views and have perspective, that's the difference. The latest LROC images are perfect for mapping and other purposes but not really suitable for my type of research.

Here is another interesting view selected from Apollo image #23185.

Some of these structures are brightly illuminated. Therefore, if this lighting is as we know it, electricity has to be generated by some method.





Direct view:

i985.photobucket.com...


Credit for all images: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona

reply to post by arianna

Some of these structures are brightly illuminated. Therefore, if this lighting is as we know it, electricity has to be generated by some method.

You realize the sun emits (among other things) visible light, right?

But according to what you said, because some areas of the moon have lighter colored areas and craters, they must be electrically lit?

Where's the hint of logic there?

What about reflectivity differences?

What about lighter colored rock and materials added or thrown up from meteor strikes at those craters?

The whites of my eyes are lighter than my iris so they must be lit by electrical means, huh?

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

If you had read what I said you would know what I'm referring to. The majority of LROC are not suitable as they only give a "top-down" view. The images I am posting here are oblique or angled views and have perspective, that's the difference. The latest LROC images are perfect for mapping and other purposes but not really suitable for my type of research.

No image is suitable for your type of research if you cant see your objects in 60cm or 50cm/pixel images they are in your mind and no were else!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

If you had read what I said you would know what I'm referring to. The majority of LROC are not suitable as they only give a "top-down" view. The images I am posting here are oblique or angled views and have perspective, that's the difference. The latest LROC images are perfect for mapping and other purposes but not really suitable for my type of research.

No image is suitable for your type of research if you cant see your objects in 60cm or 50cm/pixel images they are in your mind and no were else!

There is a difference between the Apollo images and the LROC images. The former was captured on analogue 70mm colour film and the LROC images are captured by a digital camera. As you know, I have posted some of the LROC images in another thread and in my opinion the downloaded originals left a lot to be desired, that's why I had to use an enhancement process to 'bring out' the detail.


Below is a closer view of the image shown above.

A larger view is available at the Direct link.





Direct link:

i985.photobucket.com...


.

reply to post by arianna


You have yet to explain why you think lighter areas in your images must be electric lights instead of different rock / material or reflective areas?

Also, do your moon-men and animals breathe?
If so, what would they breathe in the vacuum of space?

Do they have liquids in their bodies?
If so, what liquids that would not be frozen in the deep freeze of space?

In this thread, I mentioned that the people on the moon are 'masters of deception'. If you look very carefully into this image, which was taken from the left side of the previous image, it can be seen what I mean.

The image shows many structures which are very closely grouped. The people of this civilization have developed an art-orientated culture and have integrated artistically designed features into their environment. Look to the lower right and you will see groups of structures that have been constructed in such a way to form a picture when seen from above..

reply to post by arianna

The people of this civilization have developed an art-orientated culture and have integrated artistically designed features into their environment.

How does one become an expert on a civilization that isn't even proven to exist?

Not even hinted at evidence for existence...yet you are an authority on their "art-orientated culture".

How can you tell this from a grainy false-color image?

You haven't answered my questions though:

What do moon-men and animals breathe if they do, and do they have liquid in their physiology? How and what in the vacuum and cold of space?
And how do you know?

reply to post by arianna


So what you have a 900x525 pixel image there what area of the moons surface does that cover do you even know?

You really dont have a clue what you are doing !

The eriktheawful gave you a link to this from above same resolution as LRO and you think nothing would show



You DESTROY detail with your process to dont enhance it and you are the only person who can't see that!!!

reply to post by arianna

Producing an anaglyph from a stereo pair is a creative process.

.....So, you are creating images, adding false colors, then enlarging them.

This is your "research"?

This is how you "know" moon people are an "art oriented culture"?
How do you even know there is a they?

I'm sorry, correct me if I'm wrong, but you've never been to the moon.

You are looking at the same images the rest of the world is, yet you think you know about their culture, that they are "masters of disguise" and you say:

my brain is more 'tuned-in'

Just what makes you think that?

Have you considered -- just even considered -- that you are seeing what you want to see?

If that's the case, well then yeah, that would be neat. But even then I still don't see anything.

But there is absolutely no evidence from you or NASA or the EAS or anyone else to show that what you are saying is true.