A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: Unnatural Features on Moon Surface

Please examine this photo of lunar surface taken during Apollo mission. Source is official, processing is documented, and reproduction is possible.

plus.google.com...


There is more than one way to skin a cat.

reply to post by PINGi14


Great.
Another untrained eye as it comes to geology, and space based photography making claims based from their own confusion over Pareidolia.

Perhaps you could point out these magical mystery features?
Circle them or something?
Provide close ups? Outlines?

Extrapolated 3D renderings of your interpretation?

I looked at it and honestly I am not sure what you are getting at.

Could you circle it for us and re-upload?

What exactly are we looking for?

Please if you want to start a thread, offer a brief description of what the features are and why they are 'unnatural'.
What may be unnatural on Earth may be consistant with a differing atmosphere and gravitational climate.

Also, what is your opinion on your contribution?

Just throwing out a photo with a glib 'more than one way to skin a cat' comment is simply thread suicide and a waste of your time.
Just being helpful, respect.

Here is the OP's photo for those that can not see it:



No idea what the OP is trying to show.....other than the moon's surface with craters.

Clue to the Riddle :

plus.google.com...

Typical surface photo of the Moon? Yes, but look closer. Take your time and explore the landscape. If you see any interesting or 'unnatural' features on the surface, you are not alone. Feel free to download the HQ photo and play around with it, enhance it, scrutinize it. You may or may not feel comfortable with what you discover. Thus is the truth. Should you feel compelled, share this photo or your enhancement of it with whomever you wish. More analysis and scrutiny, the better. FYI: The prominent crater in the middle is about 16km in diameter.

Sourced from official NASA Apollo photo collection. Certain filters including sharpen were applied to whole image only and absolutely no pixel or group of pixels were modified individually in any way. This image is a cropped section of a larger area. More detail to be released.

I can see about ten faces in there, human, ape, and frog, but those can be seen in anything which has circles. I don't know what the major discovery is here, but I've got the New York Times on hold and they're waiting for the announcement.

Are you all blind!?

You can't see the Superman symbol in the crater featured prominately in the pic? It's obviously guerrilla advertising for the new Superman movie! Hooray!

Originally posted by superman2012
Are you all blind!?

You can't see the Superman symbol in the crater featured prominately in the pic? It's obviously guerrilla advertising for the new Superman movie! Hooray!

DIng ding ding, we have a winner! And it took someone with X-ray vision to find it! (or at least someone with some attention on the subject).

Originally posted by PINGi14
Please examine this photo of lunar surface taken during Apollo mission. Source is official, processing is documented, and reproduction is possible.

plus.google.com...


There is more than one way to skin a cat.

I like others see a picture of the moon surface-what is it we are looking for exactly?
Thanks!

My reasoning for not pointing out the specifics right off the bat was to present the evidence as is and avoid influencing perception before viewer had the chance to examine on their own. I can see a lot of people are complaining about this but hope you understand it was lesser of the two evils.

Originally posted by PINGi14
Please examine this photo of lunar surface taken during Apollo mission.

For some reason it looks a little too dark (or maybe there was some contrast change) for a common Apollo photo.

Source is official, processing is documented, and reproduction is possible.

No source, processing not document, reproduction unlikely.

Would you mind posting some more information about this photo and the processing?

Thanks in advance.

I think this thread proves that sometimes a 1000 words is worth more than a picture.

Originally posted by PINGi14
My reasoning for not pointing out the specifics right off the bat was to present the evidence as is and avoid influencing perception before viewer had the chance to examine on their own. I can see a lot of people are complaining about this but hope you understand it was lesser of the two evils.

You need to provide a link to the ORIGINAL photo source.

Not your blog (as it seems you are heavy into advertising yourself).

If you want people to take a serious look, then you need to provide the actual source of the image. Not one that you've already manipulated by putting a water mark of your web site in the bottom right hand corner of the image.

That is if you want to be taken seriously here on ATS.

I plan to release all supporting docs asap. I can say for now there were certain filters applied to the entire image. No arbitrary manipulation of pixels. People will be able to reproduce by following the steps. No one could possibly manipulate this many pixels into something from nothing I dont think. The original image is about 4k by 4k pixels and there are many of them.

Nothing wrong with putting your stamp on your work. I thought that was pretty widespread concept lol. The image is provided with CC license to edit and redistribute freely so go ahead, play around with it.

You can download the tif image for local viewing by clicking on the option button located botom left of the linked page. My apologies for the terse first post. Better context will be provided on future postings that I create.

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by PINGi14
My reasoning for not pointing out the specifics right off the bat was to present the evidence as is and avoid influencing perception before viewer had the chance to examine on their own. I can see a lot of people are complaining about this but hope you understand it was lesser of the two evils.

You need to provide a link to the ORIGINAL photo source.

Not your blog (as it seems you are heavy into advertising yourself).

If you want people to take a serious look, then you need to provide the actual source of the image. Not one that you've already manipulated by putting a water mark of your web site in the bottom right hand corner of the image.

That is if you want to be taken seriously here on ATS.

I appreciate your efforts.....
Unfortunately unable to duplicate same.....Please U2U me when the images get put up that you are referring to...i will glady look at them then.....
warmest regards........... stirling......

reply to post by PINGi14



You still should provide the following for images like this (Moon, Mars, Space, etc)

Link to the original image(s) untouched by you or anyone from their original source.

If from the moon or Mars from orbit: Lat. and Long. information of the area. Exceptions to this are ground based photos such as from the original Apollo moon landings, Mars rovers. In the case of the rovers on Mars, such as Curiosity, simply providing the Sol they were taken on is enough.

I apologize, however this thread really, really smacks of advertising your blog and not serious discussion here on ATS.