What's going on in Copernicus crater?

Originally posted by arianna
Any image artifacts, such as jpg compression artifacts, are removed from the downloaded original before further processing.

The only way of doing that is by removing also some detail from the image.

reply to post by arianna


The best way of knowing if that's a tower or not is to look at a "top down" photo, if it shows that white point in the same place then it's a result of perspective.

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by arianna

Take note of the tall tower feature circled in green and use as reference.

What tall tower? All it is a white spot....

No wmd_2008, you are completely incorrect.

The circular light-coloured base is supporting a darker structure with a tower extending from the roof. (See diagram) The arrows without text are pointing to other structures that are much darker.

The darkness of the view could be down to the location being on the far-side of the moon. The original image gives the impression that the colour film was over-exposed. Therefore, to resolve any surface detail from the very light positive, the image has to be darkened considerably.

Lat / Long: 10.5° N / 110° E

Here is a diagramatic view showing what you are referring to as a "white spot".

this is good. can you do the same for the other things you see. I would like to understand what a face-structure-dwelling looks like to you.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

As for your electric light comment arianna why have them on in sunlight

I do not think there is any sunlight in the image as there are no shadows being cast in the pits and craters. It would appear that this capture was made in ambient light. See image below which I have corrected.

There is a larger version available at Direct view below.





Direct view:

i985.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008

As for your electric light comment arianna why have them on in sunlight

I do not think there is any sunlight in the image as there are no shadows being cast in the pits and craters. It would appear that this capture was made in ambient light. See image below which I have corrected.

There is a larger version available at Direct view below.

Direct view:

i985.photobucket.com...

You darkened the image or did you forget that ... just unbelievable

reply to post by wmd_2008


Just go to the NASA image, reduce the brightness to a suitable level and chek the pits and craters for shadows.

I notice the image I posted showing the structures and facial representations on the lunar surface did not attract the debunkers.

I wonder why?

Originally posted by arianna
I notice the image I posted showing the structures and facial representations on the lunar surface did not attract the debunkers.

I wonder why?

Maybe they fell asleep?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by arianna
I notice the image I posted showing the structures and facial representations on the lunar surface did not attract the debunkers.

I wonder why?

Maybe they fell asleep?

ArMaP, nice one!

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Just go to the NASA image, reduce the brightness to a suitable level and chek the pits and craters for shadows.

I notice the image I posted showing the structures and facial representations on the lunar surface did not attract the debunkers.

I wonder why?

I think the consensus is that no facial representations or anything that looks like a strucure can be found. So debunking something that can only be attributed to mental imagery is impossible. If I see fairies and elves that nobody else can see can that be debunked? If no, then it must be true. Can you outline a facial representation? I want to understand what that is.

No, there are things that look like a face, pharaoh, big foot/mermaid, structure however, with the angle they are shot at and all the surroundong natural formations, it is all natural.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Here, Curiosity will teach you to think clearly when it starts scanning and taking picture of all your 'anomalies' which are quite natural strutures.

Seeing what ridiculous claims some have made lately, I would gladly stick to NASA's explanations and discoveries just like I've been doing in the good old times.

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Just go to the NASA image, reduce the brightness to a suitable level and chek the pits and craters for shadows.

I notice the image I posted showing the structures and facial representations on the lunar surface did not attract the debunkers.

I wonder why?

Well lets have a look at the NASA SITE and see what they say about the image

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
Sun Elevation: 77°

Well what do you know SUN you know the big yellow thing in the sky that gives us LIGHT was at a 77° to the moon surface and you claim ambient light just

This just reinforces the fact that your delusion controls what you think you see in these images!!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


If you believe the data to be correct then show me where the shadows in the pits or craters are.

There are no shadows, so that proves the data to be misleading.

The image was captured in ambient light.

reply to post by Imtor


As far as the latest mission is concerned, we will have to see if the returned images are true representations of the colours on Mars or the same rubbish they have been dishing out for all the previous missions except Viking.

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

If you believe the data to be correct then show me where the shadows in the pits or craters are.

There are no shadows, so that proves the data to be misleading.

The image was captured in ambient light.

edit on 7-8-2012 by arianna because: (no reason given)

The SUN has such a high elevation angle 77° that the craters dont have shadows also the picture is a HASSALBLAD picture so resolution is to low to show smaller object such as rocks that would show a small shadow, and the image is overexposed.

You claim you have some photographic knowledge so why dont you ever use it

Originally posted by arianna
As far as the latest mission is concerned, we will have to see if the returned images are true representations of the colours on Mars or the same rubbish they have been dishing out for all the previous missions except Viking.

That shows that you do not understand why the photos look like that.

If you apply the same process to the newer rovers and lander you will get the same result: radiometrically corrected images show everything reddish, like photos from Earth during sand storms, uncorrected images show blue (or white) skies.

PS: how can you know what are the real colours on Mars?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by arianna
As far as the latest mission is concerned, we will have to see if the returned images are true representations of the colours on Mars or the same rubbish they have been dishing out for all the previous missions except Viking.

That shows that you do not understand why the photos look like that.

If you apply the same process to the newer rovers and lander you will get the same result: radiometrically corrected images show everything reddish, like photos from Earth during sand storms, uncorrected images show blue (or white) skies.

PS: how can you know what are the real colours on Mars?

I do understand ArMaP but perhaps you would like to explain why the Viking images appear so natural and the images from the later missions appear to have been deliberately coloured back here to give the viewer a false impression of what it is really like on Mars.

All the images returned from the MER and Phoenix missions are Black and White images, but the individual captures contain the colour information of the filter selected and used in front of the camera lens. To obtain a true-colour broad-spectrum image all the information from the individual filters would have to be combined.

This means that the individual L2; L3 and L4 data would have to be combined to produce a RED data image. The L5 filter is used to produce a Green data image and the BLUE data would be provided by a combination of the L6 and L7 filters. So what we end up with prior to combining all the individual image data is an image containing all the Red data, an image containing the green data and an image containing all the blue data. Note that the L2 filter is an infra-red filter and the L7 filter is an ultra-violet filter. It is possible to produce a colour image using just the L4 (Red), L5 (Green) and L6 (Blue) images, but the use of all the images using the filters L2 thru L7 is preferred to produce an image with better colour fidelity.

In the past I have produced full-spectrum colour images of the martian landscape and the sky always had a blue colour.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

If you believe the data to be correct then show me where the shadows in the pits or craters are.

There are no shadows, so that proves the data to be misleading.

The image was captured in ambient light.

edit on 7-8-2012 by arianna because: (no reason given)

The SUN has such a high elevation angle 77° that the craters dont have shadows also the picture is a HASSALBLAD picture so resolution is to low to show smaller object such as rocks that would show a small shadow, and the image is overexposed.

You claim you have some photographic knowledge so why dont you ever use it

So, if what you say is correct, where are all the shadows produced by the higher surface objects?

There is nothing wrong with the resolution of the 70s images. In fact, some of the close-up oblique views I have produced that were captured using 70s colour film show very good resolution. The problem with the latest LROC images is that they are not producing the same oblique views as the 70s captures. Although the clarity of these 'top-down' views is a great improvement they lack perspective.

The 70s images were taken with superior analogue colour film which is far better to use than digital capture but then if you know all about photography that should come as no surprise.

The latest replies seem to be addressing technical issues which is not what this thread is about.

I feel that what I am currently finding in the images of the moon is very important and should not be hidden at the end of a long thread. In view of this I feel a new thread should be started to address the issue of built structures on the lunar surface which warrants a seperate thread away from the Copernicus crater topic.

I will finish off this thread with an image that displays some remarkable surface features captured with 70s film. I have tried to find some LROC views of Copernicus but up to the present time have not found anything suitable.

The view is taken from the Apollo image AS17-151-23185 and can be verified should you wish to check it out.

I would like to thank all members who have posted contributions in this thread.

A larger version is available at the Direct link below.





Direct link:

i985.photobucket.com...

reply to post by arianna


What's your point? That Mars isn't rusty? Look it through a telescope with at least 150 mm diameter perhaps?