What's going on in Copernicus crater?

reply to post by ArMaP


Yes ArMaP, your comments about the artwork would be much appreciated. I will explain more later.

Originally posted by arianna
I have posted this particular piece of artwork as it is important to the discussion.

Many claim they cannot see what I see in an image.

Have a look at the image and count up how many figures you see and post your result

were those created intentionally by the artist?

reply to post by wmd_2008


well i do believe the story is, the camera that took the copernicus images was a hasselbad. when john received his negatives of them, he had them developed, then made copies and put them on the net. if you'll notice, when you zoom in a hasselbad, it doesn't pixelate like a normal image.

notice the camera john used to photograph one of the developed photos, has evidence of pixellation before you even zoom in on it. that's what i'm referring to. the type of image file it's saved to, is also good, not arguing that, just pointing out that the rules that apply to modern images, don't apply as readily or as soon in the zooming process on hasselbad images (saved and uploaded in a good format). thus the argument that the straight angles on the copernicus plateaus are simply the result of some pixellation process isn't as applicable.

next, if the scanning process resulted in scan lines that travelled horizontally, vertically AND diagonally (which would be necessary to produce those diagonal right angled plateaus (obviously graded areas) the images would be practically useless and the point of taking them, lost in the translation

reply to post by undo

this one, pixelated

That is a Lunar Orbiter photo; it was not taken with a Hasselblad. Any photo that has been converted to a digital format will pixilate if you magnify it enough. Incidentally, the Lunar Orbiter photos have two or three levels for data to go wrong even before they are scanned. The original photos were taken on long strips of film, potentially introducing scratches, dust, flawed emulsion, etc. They were then scanned photoelectrically, converted into a radio signal and beamed across 384,000 kilometers of electrically crackling space. Each of those steps can introduce additional errors. Finally, they were printed out, spread on the floor, and assembled like a jigsaw puzzle. They are good enough to make a decent map, but just not good enough to spot a steam shovel from 60 kilometers up.

"pieces of dust, scratches and scan lines" ? no, graded plateaus. it's so obvious. what's the big fuss. why would nasa take these awesome pictures and then not expect us to look at them with our own eyes. i'm sorry but until you can prove to me that those aren't graded plateaus, i'm gonna stick with the theory that those are graded plateaus. and if i'm right, i'd like a job in the photo analyzation dept, thanks

Originally posted by undo
well i do believe the story is, the camera that took the copernicus images was a hasselbad.

Lunar Orbiter photos were taken with a camera system from Kodak

if you'll notice, when you zoom in a hasselbad, it doesn't pixelate like a normal image.

That has nothing to do with the camera, once a photo is scanned it becomes just another pixel grid. On any computer screen, all pixels have the same size, regardless of the source of the image or how it was made.

notice the camera john used to photograph one of the developed photos, has evidence of pixellation before you even zoom in on it.

Maybe that photo was already resized before posting, that would create that effect.

reply to post by arianna


Well, as a piece of artwork, if was done by someone to represent a view of the Moon then that "artist" limited his/her work to just using an existing photo, as I don't see any difference between that image and this one, except for a slight difference in size and a 90º ccw rotation.

reply to post by undo

"pieces of dust, scratches and scan lines" ? no, graded plateaus. it's so obvious. what's the big fuss. why would nasa take these awesome pictures and then not expect us to look at them with our own eyes. i'm sorry but until you can prove to me that those aren't graded plateaus, i'm gonna stick with the theory that those are graded plateaus. and if i'm right, i'd like a job in the photo analyzation dept, thanks

Here is a photo taken from a different angle under different lighting conditions with a camera that did not have three levels of potential error. Where are your "graded plateaus" (and steam shovels!) here:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Many, many more here:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by undo

 

"pieces of dust, scratches and scan lines" ? no, graded plateaus. it's so obvious. what's the big fuss. why would nasa take these awesome pictures and then not expect us to look at them with our own eyes. i'm sorry but until you can prove to me that those aren't graded plateaus, i'm gonna stick with the theory that those are graded plateaus. and if i'm right, i'd like a job in the photo analyzation dept, thanks

Here is a photo taken from a different angle under different lighting conditions with a camera that did not have three levels of potential error. Where are your "graded plateaus" (and steam shovels!) here:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Many, many more here:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

i don't necessarily agree with the steam shovel zorgon posted. i have a nice one of what appears to be a big construct, but i'm still working on the plateaus. and just so you know, i'm accustomed to looking at these images now and know the locations of the plateaus, visually. as a result, here's the plateaus in your exceedingly bright photo. (you can't be serious. give me a serious answer, not this ....hey i'll just post a pic where the light is so bright ya can't recognize most of the features!... that's disingenious and insulting. and makes it seem as if you want people to loook really close at these images. now why would that be, pray tell? don't be yankin' my chain. )

here's your image, with the plateaus highlighted.

reply to post by undo



The camera on the orbiter WASN'T a Hasselblad as you have been already told!

Photography has been a hobby of mine for 30+ years, using computers to edit images 15+ years I do have a rough idea of the process and limitations YOU don't!

On my last post this image shows the process did you bother to look?



Seriously do you think this image posted shows great detail?



As for your plateaus do you honestly think they are artificial ? next they will be moon rice paddies.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by undo

 

As for your plateaus do you honestly think they are artificial ?

next they will be moon rice paddies.

oh i get it, you're trolling people.
i fell for it, AGAIN!

reply to post by undo

here's your image, with the plateaus highlighted.

If they're plateaus, why are they at a lower elevation than the terracing of the crater walls? What you're looking at is the floor of the crater, seen through outcroppings of the crater wall (and assorted hill-sized debris).

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by arianna
I have posted this particular piece of artwork as it is important to the discussion.

Many claim they cannot see what I see in an image.

Have a look at the image and count up how many figures you see and post your result

were those created intentionally by the artist?

edit on 18/12/11 by mcrom901 because: (no reason given)

Yes, in my opinion the representations of the figures and faces were created intentionally.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by arianna

 

Well, as a piece of artwork, if was done by someone to represent a view of the Moon then that "artist" limited his/her work to just using an existing photo, as I don't see any difference between that image and this one, except for a slight difference in size and a 90º ccw rotation.

ArMaP, Did you have a look at the animation I posted on page 8?

Do you see the figures in the animation?

Are you saying the artwork that contains the figures is a photographic copy of a lunar scene?

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by arianna
I have posted this particular piece of artwork as it is important to the discussion.

Many claim they cannot see what I see in an image.

Have a look at the image and count up how many figures you see and post your result

were those created intentionally by the artist?

edit on 18/12/11 by mcrom901 because: (no reason given)

Yes, in my opinion the representations of the figures and faces were created intentionally.

can you post the full image?

reply to post by mcrom901


The full view of the scene and an animation showing the figures is posted in the lower section of page 8.

reply to post by arianna


what is your source for said artwork?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by undo

 

here's your image, with the plateaus highlighted.

If they're plateaus, why are they at a lower elevation than the terracing of the crater walls? What you're looking at is the floor of the crater, seen through outcroppings of the crater wall (and assorted hill-sized debris).

graded flat rectanular and square plots of moon surface. graded graded. point is, they're graded and flat, with various constructs built on the flattened grade. why ask me these questions, ask nasa. maybe they can take a closer look and tell us what that is. i mean we can see pics of the detail of tiny rocks all over mars. no reason why we can't get better detailed images of the moon right? right? RIGHT?

reply to post by undo

graded flat rectanular and square plots of moon surface. graded graded. point is, they're graded and flat, with various constructs built on the flattened grade. why ask me these questions, ask nasa. maybe they can take a closer look and tell us what that is. i mean we can see pics of the detail of tiny rocks all over mars. no reason why we can't get better detailed images of the moon right? right? RIGHT?

Impact melted and rubble strewn. They're flat because they're the crater floor, they're rectangular because you're looking at them obliquely through terracing and "hills." They are no different than the ground beyond the central peaks. Incidentally, we do have much, much more detailed images of the Moon, but "anomaly spotters" don't like them as much as the old, fuzzy ones.



LROC



Why do your "plateaus" only look like plateaus from certain angles?

reply to post by DJW001


neither the pic or the video is as detailed or as high res as the original lunar orbiter images. some of the graded areas are slanted enough from the normal terrain to tell they are still graded areas. and their elevation is above
the crater floor. please stop arguing with me about this if you don't want the info out there, because this will just escalate and i don't want to end up in gitmo for looking at pics and saying, "hey this looks like a levelled grade with structures on it."

thanks and have a nice holiday season