Some unexpected objects found in a lunar view.

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

So erik, you consider yourself to be an expert on lunar matters. Well, that makes two of us.

What's wrong with using a process in Photoshop to find answers to things that should be of great concern to people. Were the Apollo 11 astronauts 'warned' to get off the moon? If so, by whom and how was the warning given? Did a couple of lunarians walk up to the astronauts and tell them verbally to get lost or was the presence of their huge spacecraft enough for the message to come back to earth that a moonbase is out of the question.

So why did Apollo 12 14 15 16 17 land

The enhanced view of the lunar surface shown above is a crop from a large version of the full image. It is not a screen capture. The image number is AS15-P-9627_FULL_MED.png The file is 16.82MB (14964 x 1609)

Here is the original enhancement with a larger view at the Direct view below.





Direct view:

i985.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by arianna

 

Back to simple tests, you claim that the white dots on your image are not craters pick one from below and lets find it on the original picture before your process.

i985.photobucket.com...

Pick a dot

The task you have set is not an easy one due to the 'whitewash' that has been added to the image before its release but a visual presentation can be produced of where some of the 'dots' are located in the original image.

BS you claimed a few posts back that the reason YOU used these images was because they were from a film camera you get set a challenge and guess what this image is no longer suitable just

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

So erik, you consider yourself to be an expert on lunar matters. Well, that makes two of us.

What's wrong with using a process in Photoshop to find answers to things that should be of great concern to people. Were the Apollo 11 astronauts 'warned' to get off the moon? If so, by whom and how was the warning given? Did a couple of lunarians walk up to the astronauts and tell them verbally to get lost or was the presence of their huge spacecraft enough for the message to come back to earth that a moonbase is out of the question.

It's questions like these that prompts my desire to find out exactly what is on the lunar surface and to find out if we are being given the correct visual information by the space-science communities which, to be quite honest, after years of visual examination and analysis of many of the images from Mars and the moon I do not think we are.

And BTW, I still have the original enhancement to post as the image shown above is the darkened version. Another thing you may not have realized is that you will not be able to see the structural features on the surface using an optical telescope. There would be too much distortion due to our atmosphere. Now, if you could hitch a lift in the ISS that might help to get a clearer picture of the lunar surface.

edit on 13-5-2013 by arianna because: added text

I'm afraid you are a bit mistaken. Our atmosphere has nothing to do with not being able to resolve details of any structures on the moon.

It's called Resolution Power and is a very simple law of optics.

Resolution depends upon the size of any object and it's distance. The ISS can resolve some very impressive pictures of nebula that are hundreds of light years away. But that is also because the size of those nebula are measured in light years.

The moon on the other hand, while a lot closer, still averages about a quarter of a million miles away, and is in itself rather small.

In order for the ISS to give us the same amount of detail that the LROC does, it would need a primary mirror the size of a football field.

So no, even the ISS would not be able to see small things on the surface of the moon.

But, if there were a very large, sprawling complex structure on the near side of the moon, both the ISS and ground base telescopes would be able to see something like that (IE a city on the moon).

I'm not trying to change your mind. You have demonstrated over and over and over here on ATS that you will not follow the scientific method for discovery. You have decided that there MUST be something there to find, and that is faulty thinking.

A true researcher goes in with the thought of: there MIGHT be something there. And then accepts the data as it stands, even if it shows nothing.

They don't manipulate that data until they get something that they want to see.

reply to post by eriktheawful



I think you are missing the point I was trying to make. If a telescope was used beyond the outer reaches of the earth's atmosphere it would practically eliminate any distortion when viewing a particular location on the surface of the moon.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Yes, I do have a preference for the lunar images that were captured on film. Anyway, a few posts back you gave me the impression that you wanted to produce an enhancement of the view yourself and that you were going to use the GIMP program for the process. There is a 'burn' feature in the GIMP program but unfortunately, it is not subtle enough for the process. That is the reason why I use Photoshop for the shadow enhancement procedure.

I will endeavour to produce what you ask when I have time. I do have other commitments and don't really have time to be sitting in front of a computer all day long.

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Yes, I do have a preference for the lunar images that were captured on film. Anyway, a few posts back you gave me the impression that you wanted to produce an enhancement of the view yourself and that you were going to use the GIMP program for the process. There is a 'burn' feature in the GIMP program but unfortunately, it is not subtle enough for the process. That is the reason why I use Photoshop for the shadow enhancement procedure.

I will endeavour to produce what you ask when I have time. I do have other commitments and don't really have time to be sitting in front of a computer all day long.

What a retired person like you has no time to sit about all day I to have a busy schedule but a quick reply to your comment above.



So the G I M P burn tool doesn't have enough options I all so noticed you avoided answering your comment about whitewash on picture but hey I have come to expect that from you just in case you have forgotten what you said.

The task you have set is not an easy one due to the 'whitewash' that has been added to the image before its release but a visual presentation can be produced of where some of the 'dots' are located in the original image.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Well, as you said you wanted to produce an enhanced image for yourself, why don't you use the same selection as I used and let's see what you come up with. BTW, I have had a look at the so-called crater by the side of the ellipse you referred to in the LROC image and it's not a crater at all if you care to examine the image carefully but it has detail that is definitely not natural.

Originally posted by arianna
BTW, I have had a look at the so-called crater by the side of the ellipse you referred to in the LROC image and it's not a crater at all if you care to examine the image carefully but it has detail that is definitely not natural.

Why doesn't it look natural to you?

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

I think you are missing the point I was trying to make. If a telescope was used beyond the outer reaches of the earth's atmosphere it would practically eliminate any distortion when viewing a particular location on the surface of the moon.

You really don't have a clue!!!!! arianna just to cofirm to everyone how LITTLE you actually know about this subject.

The LRO narrow angle cameras.





Specs
mage scale 0.5 meter per pixel (10 micro-radian IFOV)
Maximum Image size 2.5 x 26 km
Optics f/3.59 Cassegrain (Ritchey-Chretien)
Effective FL 700 mm
Primary Mirror Diameter 195 mm
FOV 2.85° per NAC

The camera is a telescope with the sensor on the back with a fast f3.5 aperture to get as much light as possible.

A Ritchey–Chrétien telescope (RCT or simply RC) is a specialized Cassegrain telescope invented in the early 20th century that has a hyperbolic primary mirror and a hyperbolic secondary mirror designed to eliminate optical errors (coma). They have large field of view free of optical errors compared to a more conventional reflecting telescope configuration. Since the mid 20th century most large professional research telescopes have been Ritchey–Chrétien configurations.

So if we look at your quote above the underlined stated by YOU shows that the best images MUST be from the LRO highest resolution and a telescope !!!!!

There are NO structures on the Moon apart from ours you see rocks and craters and your process does not enhance the images!

reply to post by wmd_2008


The kind of comments you are making are not being helpful to the thread. I made a statement above that the so-called crater next to the ellipse is not a crater. Like many other similar features many have been constructed to look like craters from above. I am prepared to back up this claim with an image of the feature in question that was captured by the LROC. And yes, I have enhanced the image as that is the only way to determine exactly what is on the surface and the amount of detail I am observing in the image definitely doesn't have the appearance of being rocks. I will post the images later but at the present time I am in the process of upgrading my operating system.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

Were the Apollo 11 astronauts 'warned' to get off the moon? If so, by whom and how was the warning given? Did a couple of lunarians walk up to the astronauts and tell them verbally to get lost or was the presence of their huge spacecraft enough for the message to come back to earth that a moonbase is out of the question.

So why did Apollo 12 14 15 16 17 land

Arianna, you ignored this. I would like to hear your answer to it. Thanks.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by arianna
BTW, I have had a look at the so-called crater by the side of the ellipse you referred to in the LROC image and it's not a crater at all if you care to examine the image carefully but it has detail that is definitely not natural.

Why doesn't it look natural to you?

ArMaP, sorry for not replying sooner but I have been in the process of changing my OS from XP to Windows 7.

One of the reasons why it does not look natural to me concerns what is on the terrain within the 'crater' area and the surrounding area. I will post an image of what I have found in due course. I would ask members to be patient for a while.

reply to post by Orphia Nay


The other missions landed on the moon because finances had been commissioned for them to take place. After the success of the Apollo 11 mission it was all go for more Apollo missions and scientific explorations to take place. Also, due to the size of these projects many new employment positions were created.

It's possible that the other missions took place to confirm what had been seen on the surface from above by the first astronauts and also to carry out further scientific experiments and surface exploration.

Apologies for not posting but I am on short vocation and the mobile broadband connection is so slow transferring data.

Originally posted by arianna
Apologies for not posting but I am on short vocation and the mobile broadband connection is so slow transferring data.

Just as well he is not on a long vacation