this photo of Tsiolkovsky should make you question that moon is a "dead rock", a lifeless place with no atmosphere or gravity strong enough to hold that atmosphere. liquid water could never exist on the moons surface if there was no atmosphere to stabilize the extreme temperature oscilations and gravity strong enough to hold that atmoshpere.
http://s28.postimg.org/6izak6rt9/Tsiolkovsky.jpg (http://s28.postimg.org/6izak6rt9/Tsiolkovsky.jpg)
(http://s28.postimg.org/6izak6rt9/Tsiolkovsky.jpg)
also, take a good look at this apollo 8 frame showing Tsiolkovsky in the center. it is looking in W > E direction.
http://www.directlinkupload.com/uploads/93.142.160.60/AS08-12-2196A.jpg (http://www.directlinkupload.com/uploads/93.142.160.60/AS08-12-2196A.jpg)
vril_ya, what is the source for the first photo you posted?
seeker
Don't worry your lots are not by the lakeside. Lol
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on September 16, 2014, 02:16:44 AM
Don't worry your lots are not by the lakeside. Lol
bwahahaha Sarge don't let the cat out of the bag 8)
'nother week or so gonna add a couple more 8)
Also curious regarding the source....okay seeker...me thinks you all have something up your sleeve? lol
:o ;)
Quote from: spacemaverick on September 16, 2014, 02:28:42 AM
Also curious regarding the source....okay seeker...me thinks you all have something up your sleeve? lol
:o ;)
Who,me? :o not I, sayeth the old fat man with no teeth 8)
the source of the first photo is vladimir terzinski, more precisely his lecture http://youtu.be/tEe-QGohonU?t=6h35m6s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEe-QGohonU) (also shows AS08-12-2196 and yet another frame of tsiolkovsky)
second photo i found at holyconservancy.org which has a huge collection of apollo frames http://www.holyconservancy.org/images/PLAN/MOON/AS08/ (http://www.holyconservancy.org/images/PLAN/MOON/AS08/)
Wow Vril !,
I have never seen a youtube video as long as this before ! 7 hrs 28 mins :) ....I didnt think it was possible to upload such a huge video....Have you actually watched through all of that ?
What are your thoughts on the Speaker...Is he known as being Credible in your experience ?
Quotethe source of the first photo is vladimir terzinski, more precisely his lecture http://youtu.be/tEe-QGohonU?t=6h35m6s (also shows AS08-12-2196)
there are many videos of 10+ hours on YT, usually some nonsense like "Nyan Cat". he is definitely far out for a "average joe", but a erudite physician, electrical engineer and researcher in the area of "forbidden" science and secret societies. yes, i actually watched the whole lecture, twice.
Quote from: astr0144 on September 16, 2014, 03:24:30 AM
Wow Vril !,
I have never seen a youtube video as long as this before ! 7 hrs 28 mins :) ....I didnt think it was possible to upload such a huge video....Have you actually watched through all of that ?
What are your thoughts on the Speaker...Is he known as being Credible in your experience ?
Quote from: vril-ya on September 16, 2014, 01:44:26 AM
this photo of Tsiolkovsky should make you question that moon is a "dead rock", a lifeless place with no atmosphere or gravity strong enough to hold that atmosphere.
Anyone can add colour to an image. ;)
Could you point to when that image appears on the video? Thanks in advance. :)
Quotealso, take a good look at this apollo 8 frame showing Tsiolkovsky in the center. it is looking in W > E direction.
http://www.directlinkupload.com/uploads/93.142.160.60/AS08-12-2196A.jpg (http://www.directlinkupload.com/uploads/93.142.160.60/AS08-12-2196A.jpg)
That image was resized and had the contrast enhanced, making the details disappear, it looks nothing like it should, like this one (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/highres/AS08/AS08-12-2196.JPG).
video is linked with the timing. regarding the AS08-12-2196, truth is exactly the opposite of what you said, NASA version is tilted 90° and all details have been destroyed and thick layers of gray color added.
Quote from: ArMaP on September 16, 2014, 09:35:58 PM
Anyone can add colour to an image. ;)
Could you point to when that image appears on the video? Thanks in advance. :)
That image was resized and had the contrast enhanced, making the details disappear, it looks nothing like it should, like this one (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/highres/AS08/AS08-12-2196.JPG).
Quote from: vril-ya on September 17, 2014, 06:36:21 AM
video is linked with the timing.
You're right, I didn't noticed that, as I used the link to download the video (I always do that, as that's much faster than waiting for the video to load on YouTube).
Quoteregarding the AS08-12-2196, truth is exactly the opposite of what you said, NASA version is tilted 90° and all details have been destroyed and thick layers of gray color added.
I don't have time to explain what I see now, I will get back to this when I get home from work. :)
So if we pull grey out of the image colour and detail will emerge? Can we do that with GIMP or Photoshop?
I am rubbish at image analysis and processing so forgive me if what I typed is nonsense. :-[
in some photos yes, you need to use a number of tools in photoshop in correct measure and order not to kill other details while bringing other out, mostly the curves tool, but this one on NASA website is destroyed beyond repair, with details completely removed by overexposing and adding layers of artificial greyness. you can see the same procedure done in most of the published apollo frames. in example what these criminals do, look at the apollo 15 frame how NASA publishes it today
(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/browse/AS15/87/11703.jpg)
and how the original actually looks
(http://keithlaney.net/ApolloOrbitalimages/AS15/h/as15-87-11703.jpg)
Quote from: Pimander on September 17, 2014, 12:56:39 PM
So if we pull grey out of the image colour and detail will emerge? Can we do that with GIMP or Photoshop?
I am rubbish at image analysis and processing so forgive me if what I typed is nonsense. :-[
Quote from: vril-ya on September 17, 2014, 06:36:21 AM
regarding the AS08-12-2196, truth is exactly the opposite of what you said, NASA version is tilted 90° and all details have been destroyed and thick layers of gray color added.
Now I have the time. :)
First of all, how do you know which of those photos shows the orientation of the camera when the photo was taken?
Now, about the details being destroyed by hypothetical layers with grey colour, look at the "hill" in the middle of the crater. First, in the photo you posted:
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/AS08-12-2196A_1.png)
Now, from the image I posted:
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/AS08-12-2196_1.png)
Which one has more detail? If you can show more detail in the image you posted than in the image I posted I will agree with you that detail was removed in the image I posted, but I can never agree that they added grey layers, as there's no way of knowing if they did it or not.
It's interesting to note that the first image (the one taken from the image you posted) has 256 shades of grey, while the second has only 95, but look at how they are distributed.
First image.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/AS08-12-2196A_2.png)
Second image.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/AS08-12-2196_2.png)
As you can see, the first image, although with more shades of grey, looks more like a black and white image, as almost all those shades are in the extremes (but with very few pixels along all the values), while the second image has a more natural distribution of the values.
Now look at what happens when I change the levels to make the second image look more like the first and resize it to 200%.
It now has 256 shades of grey, most of the detail is gone and the histogram shows the same type of distribution of the shades of grey.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/AS08-12-2196_3.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/AS08-12-2196_4.png)
That's what I was thinking, and that's why I didn't have the time to post it until I got home at the end of the day. :)
Quote from: vril-ya on September 17, 2014, 03:51:39 PM
in some photos yes, you need to use a number of tools in photoshop in correct measure and order not to kill other details while bringing other out, mostly the curves tool, but this one on NASA website is destroyed beyond repair, with details completely removed by overexposing and adding layers of artificial greyness.
That's why I don't use images from that site (and that's not a NASA site), I prefer the ones like this (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/highres/AS15/AS15-87-11703.JPG). :)
Quoteand how the original actually looks
(http://keithlaney.net/ApolloOrbitalimages/AS15/h/as15-87-11703.jpg)
The "original"? Does that mean that Keith Laney was the one taking the photo? :P
Now, using the image from the link I posted above, and adjusting the levels (I prefer that to using the curves tool, I find the levels easier to work with) we can get this, not that different from Keith Laney's version:
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/as15-87-11703_1.jpg)
PS: can you make your "original" photo look like the one from the link I posted, with all that detail on the exhausts?
PPS: some years ago, someone posted a list of "altered photos on NASA sites" on another forum, and I looked at all of those and most were not on NASA sites, some were on Keith Laney's site.
So, ArMaP, you think that the first image in your analysis is the first "colour" image turned to grey and the second being the original? Or not?
Is the second definitely NASA? I'm getting confused and probably should have stopped drinking wine about one hour ago. ;D
Quote from: ArMaP on September 17, 2014, 10:23:09 PM
PS: can you make your "original" photo look like the one from the link I posted, with all that detail on the exhausts?
I noticed that. In the "overexposed" image you can actually see more detail in the exhaust.
Quote from: Pimander on September 17, 2014, 11:03:38 PM
So, ArMaP, you think that the first image in your analysis is the first "colour" image turned to grey and the second being the original? Or not?
Is the second definitely NASA?
Which of my posts are you talking about? ???
QuoteI'm getting confused and probably should have stopped drinking wine about one hour ago. ;D
Probably. ;)
QuoteI noticed that. In the "overexposed" image you can actually see more detail in the exhaust.
That's because the "overexposed" image is not much overexposed, so we can get detail from the brightest areas, while the "underexposed" image doesn't show any real detail on the darker areas, which is usually a sign of it being an alteration of the original, as lost detail never returns.
Quote from: ArMaP on September 17, 2014, 11:54:23 PM
Which of my posts are you talking about? ???
I was talking about the one with the charts (the penultimate one before I asked).
QuoteThat's because the "overexposed" image is not much overexposed, so we can get detail from the brightest areas, while the "underexposed" image doesn't show any real detail on the darker areas, which is usually a sign of it being an alteration of the original, as lost detail never returns.
I think you are saying you agree with what I suspected from that detail too. NO need to answer the question I asked before as we are on the same page even with my lack of image analysis knowledge.
LPI is directly associated with NASA, it's the same gang. as for the AS15-87-11703, even if the keely version was contrast corrected, it shows the surface in much more detail, which is the aim of the shot in the first place, not the rocket exaust.
now, regarding the tilt in AS08-12-2196, if you ever analysed apollo (and lunar orbiter) imagery, you would know that primary obfuscation technique NASA uses is rotating the imagery upside-down or by 90°. this is very obvious and easy to expose as it makes the perspective look unnatural, shadows go the wrong way and objects lose sense of shape and depth. in example this is how the frame AS17-150-23085 looks like at the LPI
(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS17/150/23085.jpg)
and this is how it looks rotated 180° and contrast corrected. if you look at the surface details, you can tell the latter photo is the natural perspective of the shot.
(http://i24.servimg.com/u/f24/15/64/77/91/23085a11.jpg)
another example is AS10-30-4349
(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/browse/AS10/30/4349.jpg)
compared to
(http://www.holyconservancy.org/images/PLAN/MOON/AS08/AS10-30-4349A.jpg)
same goes for majority of the apollo frames.
funny thing you picked that small area in the center of Tsiolkovsky to prove that nasa.gov version has "more details". the thing is that small area which has been affected by contrast correction consists about 1% of the whole image.
now, for the other 99%, let's take a look and analyse. i randomly picked the area squared in yellow from both images.
(http://s12.postimg.org/s6fxci23x/image.jpg)
here is the comparison.
nasa.gov ver.:
(http://s9.postimg.org/khpvy8o59/crop2.jpg)
holyconservance ver.:
(http://s10.postimg.org/rg1e7tqbr/crop1.jpg)
it's obviously ridiculous to even compare the details in these two images. you can see in the levels that shades in image you posted are in a very narrow range and it has 45 shades of gray, while in the second image they have much wider range of values and 256 shades of gray.
(http://s14.postimg.org/w9oietfa9/Screenshot_2.png)
(http://s28.postimg.org/ptobekab1/level2.png)
likwise goes for the rest of the photo. so, by which insane logic does the photo you posted show more details? :P
Quote from: ArMaP on September 17, 2014, 09:59:34 PM
...
Quote from: vril-ya on September 18, 2014, 03:13:45 AM
LPI is directly associated with NASA, it's the same gang.
To me, being "associated with" is not the same as being "it".
Quoteas for the AS15-87-11703, even if the keely version was contrast corrected, it shows the surface in much more detail, which is the aim of the shot in the first place, not the rocket exaust.
I don't think it shows much more detail than the level adjusted version that I posted.
Quotenow, regarding the tilt in AS08-12-2196, if you ever analysed apollo (and lunar orbiter) imagery, you would know that primary obfuscation technique NASA uses is rotating the imagery upside-down or by 90°.
Turning an image 90º is no obfuscation. ::)
Quotethis is very obvious and easy to expose as it makes the perspective look unnatural, shadows go the wrong way and objects lose sense of shape and depth. in example this is how the frame AS17-150-23085 looks like at the LPI
What I have noticed in all the years I have been looking at photos from (mostly) the Moon and Mars is that, if you need to look at a photo in a specific position to see something then it's because you are looking at an optical illusion, individual features are the same, regardless of the orientation of the photo.
Quotefunny thing you picked that small area in the center of Tsiolkovsky to prove that nasa.gov version has "more details". the thing is that small area which has been affected by contrast correction consists about 1% of the whole image.
It's 0.8%. ;D
I chose that area because it was the easiest to choose in both photos, as it has some easy to compare features. But it was not that small area that was affected by contrast correction, the whole image was.
Quotenow, for the other 99%, let's take a look and analyse. i randomly picked the area squared in yellow from both images.
Yellow? That's green. ???
Quoteit's obviously ridiculous to even compare the details in these two images. you can see in the levels that shades in image you posted are in a very narrow range and it has 45 shades of gray, while in the second image they have much wider range of values and 256 shades of gray.
That's true, I said that on my post.
Quotelikwise goes for the rest of the photo. so, by which insane logic does the photo you posted show more details? :P
Because detail is not numbers, it's what we can see on the image.
Look at the area marked in
green on from the holyconservance site:
(resized to make the comparison easier)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/crop1.jpg)
Now look at the same area from the NASA site, with levels adjusted:
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/AS08-12-2196_5.png)
Which one has more detail?
PS: the image you posted as being the area marked in green from the NASA version does not correspond to that area, it shows more or less the two leftmost thirds of that area.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/crop2.jpg)
Quote from: ArMaP on September 18, 2014, 11:32:19 PM
Turning an image 90º is no obfuscation. ::)
ArMaP, let Me ask You... Given that when I looked at the turned version and saw more or less flat surface with striations, and when turned to the proper orientation, I could see mountains and depth...
WHY did They turn it 90° at all? I say subtle obfuscation. They know the mind does that. I could see the mountains and depth only after I knew to look for it.
QuoteTo me, being "associated with" is not the same as being "it".
photos are made and edited by NASA, LPI just catalogs their photos.
QuoteI don't think it shows much more detail than the level adjusted version that I posted.
i was refering to the keely version compared to NASA's overexposed one. it does show much more surface detail, moreover the white object left to the crosshair is completely airbrushed out of the photo.
(http://s28.postimg.org/yhj0vxyql/image.jpg)
QuoteTurning an image 90º is no obfuscation. ::)
really? you think they do it for fun to play mind tricks on you?
Quote
What I have noticed in all the years I have been looking at photos from (mostly) the Moon and Mars is that, if you need to look at a photo in a specific position to see something then it's because you are looking at an optical illusion, individual features are the same, regardless of the orientation of the photo.
lol. do you know anything about perspective and photography? when you turn the photo upside down, especially if the photo was taken at the angle other than 90° it becomes much harder or even impossible to figure the shapes and shadows which define the object which you would spot with no trouble looking in the natural orientation of the photo.
Quote
I chose that area because it was the easiest to choose in both photos, as it has some easy to compare features. But it was not that small area that was affected by contrast correction, the whole image was.
you picked it as it is the ONLY place that appeares to have lost information. unlike the other 99% of the photo.
QuoteYellow? That's green. ???
it's a yellow-green nuance and that's completely irrelevant to the subject of matter.
QuoteThat's true, I said that on my post.
no you didn't. you said for the photo i posted that "shades are in the extremes" and that one you posted "has a more natural distribution of the values" while it's actually completely the opposite as i have shown in the analysis.
QuoteBecause detail is not numbers, it's what we can see on the image.
right, and in the one you posted i can't see absolutely nothing but dull grayness while the other one shows many details.
QuoteNow look at the same area from the NASA site, with levels adjusted:
Which one has more detail?
the question is absurd. no contrast correction can bring back the lost information from the photograph. here are both crops so you can compare them. you see how your pic is still lacking all the detail despite the contrast correction.
(http://s30.postimg.org/pyzvt8mm7/crop3.jpg)
(http://s10.postimg.org/rg1e7tqbr/crop1.jpg)
Quote
PS: the image you posted as being the area marked in green from the NASA version does not correspond to that area, it shows more or less the two leftmost thirds of that area.
they show the aprox. the same area, it's just that the grey one is slightly more zoomed in. neither yours is a perfect match, it's slightly cut off on the sides.
--------------------
P.S. 2/3 of the images in your post are broken links.
Quote from: Pimander on September 17, 2014, 11:03:38 PM
So, ArMaP, you think that the first image in your analysis is the first "colour" image turned to grey and the second being the original? Or not?
Which portion of the moon are those images from?
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/098027c0.jpe)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/099307c0.jpe)
And NASA didn't air brush back then... they used real brushes
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/08ba0120.jpe)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/08df88b0.jpe)
Quote from: zorgon on September 19, 2014, 04:56:28 AM
Which portion of the moon are those images from?
if you refer to AS15-87-11703, Macrobius A & B.
i want to make a claim that not only does moon have lakes and therefor an atmosphere and higher gravity (similar to John Lear claims):
MOON'S SURFACE IS LITERALLY COMPLETELY COVERED WITH CIVILIZATIONS
and that there's hardly a s spot not covered with cities. i repeat,
WHOLE SURFACE, BOTH SIDES, FROM POLE TO POLE, ALL OF IT...COMPLETELY COVERED WITH CITIES AND SHIPS.
and photo analysis of apollo, lunar orbiter and amateur telescopic photography yields the same answer. simple as that, it is the truth. the truth is sooo different from what people think of the moon, it is bizzar, but true nonetheless.
Quote from: vril-ya on September 19, 2014, 06:53:35 AMWHOLE SURFACE, BOTH SIDES, FROM POLE TO POLE, ALL OF IT...COMPLETELY COVERED WITH CITIES AND SHIPS
So...
...then why can we not see the City Lights like we can on Earth?
8)
it has to do with the fact that we see the moon more pale and grey-ish looking from over here than it really is, just like earth looks more pale and greyish viewed from the moon than from the earth's orbit. i am not exactly sure for the cause of this phenomena, it's probably due to the huge amount of light from the sun reflecting of the earth and the moon. in fact we do see that aristarchus has anomalous brightness and ocasionally some other areas. why we don't see the light's of all these cities when moon is not full, i can't tell, maybe they use dimmer lightning combined with the distance of 384,000km. but the surface population density is extremely high.
Quote from: zorgon on September 19, 2014, 07:13:40 AM
So...
...then why can we not see the City Lights like we can on Earth?
8)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Tsiolkovsky/Moon_Mine002.png)
The image above is a Sketch from 1895 of a Gold Mine in Operation on the Moon by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. "Dreams of the Earth and Sky" (1895)
The tube connecting the pyramid shaped towers are clear glass as he shows people inside. This image would be of the Farside judging by the position of the Earth in the drawing and the shape of the spaceship above being that of what we call a standard UFO today is very interesting indeed.
He was a man ahead of his time, the Father of the liquid fuel rocket and even designed a space station with a revolving Torus (for gravity) complete with solar collectors, solar panels and a dish antenna... in 1896!!!! So how did he know about the Farside Mining Operation?
1895 of a gold mine in operation on the moon...
Reported in three newspaper articles
Delphos Daily Herald, The Wednesday, February 06, 1895 Delphos, Ohio
Evening News, The (Newspaper) - March 12, 1895, Lincoln, Nebraska
Delphos Daily Herald, The (Newspaper) - August 28, 1895, Delphos, Ohio
You will also notice that the HILLS are sharp jagged peaks like you see in Lunar Orbiter images...
... not the featureless smooth round blurry Apollo Hills
8)
Quote from: zorgon on September 19, 2014, 07:44:32 AM
You will also notice that the HILLS are sharp jagged peaks like you see in Lunar Orbiter images...
... not the featureless smooth round blurry Apollo Hills
8)
nice picture, Konstantin really was ahead of his time or maybe he had some insider knowledge.
i just made a step by step demonstration how to reveal the civilization on the moon using this simple method. i picked a random amateur astronomer photo and applied the same process.. check it out http://vrilya.netai.net/Aristoteles-Eudoxus/ (http://vrilya.netai.net/Aristoteles-Eudoxus/)
Quote from: Amaterasu on September 19, 2014, 02:50:39 AM
ArMaP, let Me ask You... Given that when I looked at the turned version and saw more or less flat surface with striations, and when turned to the proper orientation, I could see mountains and depth...
The turned version also had the contrast/levels changed to make things more noticeable, so it's not a real comparison between an image in one position and the same image in another position.
QuoteWHY did They turn it 90° at all?
In what position was the original photo? When taking a photo the photographer can rotate the camera in any direction, and in orbit they could be in any position in relation to the Moon.
QuoteI say subtle obfuscation.
I think that only people that are not interested in really knowing what the photos show are fooled by the position of the photo, as anyone can rotate them.
QuoteThey know the mind does that. I could see the mountains and depth only after I knew to look for it.
That's the problem, the "knowing what to look for" instead of the "trying to understand what's in the photo".
Quote from: vril-ya on September 19, 2014, 04:12:47 AM
photos are made and edited by NASA, LPI just catalogs their photos.
Then why do they look worse? ???
Quotei was refering to the keely version compared to NASA's overexposed one. it does show much more surface detail, moreover the white object left to the crosshair is completely airbrushed out of the photo.
(http://s28.postimg.org/yhj0vxyql/image.jpg)
I really don't understand why you say that "keely" (what does that mean? ??? ) photo has more detail, as we can see more things in the NASA photo. For example, the white spot near the top of the image is better defined in the NASA photo than in the other one, as we can see that the white spot is a crater instead of a white blob.
Also, that white object appears to be some kind of fiber on the photo or on the scanner when the image was scanned, I have seen thousands of cases like that.
Quotereally? you think they do it for fun to play mind tricks on you?
First of all, it can only be said that the photo was turned if we know in what position it was taken.
Quotelol. do you know anything about perspective and photography?
I do.
Quotewhen you turn the photo upside down, especially if the photo was taken at the angle other than 90° it becomes much harder or even impossible to figure the shapes and shadows which define the object which you would spot with no trouble looking in the natural orientation of the photo.
And all the above has nothing to do with photography, it's a question of perception. When I started looking at photos of the Moon, some 8 or 9 years ago, I had that problem, but I got used to it.
Quoteyou picked it as it is the ONLY place that appeares to have lost information. unlike the other 99% of the photo.
No, I picked exactly for the reason I stated, are you supposed to know what I think better than me?
Quoteit's a yellow-green nuance and that's completely irrelevant to the subject of matter.
I just thought it was strange (specially when we are talking about what we see in photos), I didn't say it was relevant.
Quoteno you didn't. you said for the photo i posted that "shades are in the extremes" and that one you posted "has a more natural distribution of the values" while it's actually completely the opposite as i have shown in the analysis.
What I meant was that I said that the photo with more detail has less shades of grey.
Quoteright, and in the one you posted i can't see absolutely nothing but dull grayness while the other one shows many details.
Are you talking about the original or the adjusted image? In the original version the detail is hard to detect, but its there, the adjustment only makes it more visible. If you can't see more detail on the adjusted NASA photo then I think we may be calling "detail" to different things.
Quotethe question is absurd.
I don't think so, isn't that what we're talking about?
Quoteno contrast correction can bring back the lost information from the photograph.
Obviously, but that has nothing to do with what I said.
Quotehere are both crops so you can compare them. you see how your pic is still lacking all the detail despite the contrast correction.
Why did you resize the image from the NASA photo to some 280%? It only makes things worse.
Quotethey show the aprox. the same area, it's just that the grey one is slightly more zoomed in. neither yours is a perfect match, it's slightly cut off on the sides.
Mine is not a perfect match, but in the following animation you can see the comparison between your cropped area from the non-NASA version (in blue) and your crop from the NASA version (in red).
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/gn541cb706.gif)
QuoteP.S. 2/3 of the images in your post are broken links.
Could you please tell me which ones? I suspect they may be the ones posted on postimg.org, as I cannot see the images you posted from that site.
Quote from: vril-ya on September 19, 2014, 09:08:03 AM
i just made a step by step demonstration how to reveal the civilization on the moon using this simple method. i picked a random amateur astronomer photo and applied the same process.. check it out http://vrilya.netai.net/Aristoteles-Eudoxus/ (http://vrilya.netai.net/Aristoteles-Eudoxus/)
That explains it.
You remind me of someone I knew some years ago on another forum that also saw signs of civilization in all photos from the Moon.
QuoteThen why do they look worse? ???
they both look bad, in this example nasa.gov version is even more overexposed.
QuoteI really don't understand why you say that "keely" (what does that mean? ??? ) photo has more detail, as we can see more things in the NASA photo. For example, the white spot near the top of the image is better defined in the NASA photo than in the other one, as we can see that the white spot is a crater instead of a white blob. Also, that white object appears to be some kind of fiber on the photo or on the scanner when the image was scanned, I have seen thousands of cases like that.
"keely" is just a shorthand i use for keith laney. i am not sure which "white spot" you refer to, but NASA photo sure does not show more detail, on the contrary, all the details are airbrushed away. here i circled three hovering ufos completely gone in the nasa version, just like all the other details. i rotated the image, so you can spot the difference easier. don't tell me these are "fibers on the photo or on the scanner" if you consider yourself intelligent.
(http://s30.postimg.org/nene11jap/AS15_87_11703.jpg)
QuoteFirst of all, it can only be said that the photo was turned if we know in what position it was taken.
you said yourself, module in the orbit can be in any position, and so can be the astonaut inside it, so he is never forced to take a picture at an unnatural angle as he can freely rotate.
QuoteAnd all the above has nothing to do with photography, it's a question of perception. When I started looking at photos of the Moon, some 8 or 9 years ago, I had that problem, but I got used to it.
let me illuminate you, perspective is the key element in photography.
QuoteNo, I picked exactly for the reason I stated, are you supposed to know what I think better than me?
i suppose you couldn't take any other part of the photo because the other 99% of it shows so much more detail than the airbrushed version.
QuoteWhat I meant was that I said that the photo with more detail has less shades of grey.
i think i already showed quite clearly that one you posted contains 45 shades of gray and virtually no detail at all, while the one i posted has 256 shades and loads of details, therefore, your claim is false.
QuoteAre you talking about the original or the adjusted image? In the original version the detail is hard to detect, but its there, the adjustment only makes it more visible. If you can't see more detail on the adjusted NASA photo then I think we may be calling "detail" to different things.
both. as i said, no correction method can recover the lost information so your "adjusted" version is still just a grey stain of pixelization artifacts while the other one looks like a hd shot compared to it.
QuoteI don't think so, isn't that what we're talking about?
it is, but the question is apsurd, anyone with sight can tell you that.
QuoteObviously, but that has nothing to do with what I said.
indeed it does, as you tried to recover lost details by changing contrast.
QuoteWhy did you resize the image from the NASA photo to some 280%? It only makes things worse.
i just brought them to the same size to compare them adequately. you can scale them down, result is the same, NASA crop has by far less detail, if you can call those pixelization artifacts details at all.
QuoteCould you please tell me which ones? I suspect they may be the ones posted on postimg.org, as I cannot see the images you posted from that site.
first and the third.
QuoteThat explains it.
You remind me of someone I knew some years ago on another forum that also saw signs of civilization in all photos from the Moon.
[SNIP!]
Vril-ya: YOU ARE TREADING ON VERY THIN ICE; YOU ARE ADDRESSING A SENIOR MEMBER AND ADMINISTRATOR AND YOUR COMMENTS ARE NOT APPRECIATED; ATTACK THE POST, NOT THE POSTER...
ONE MORE COMMENT LIKE THE PREVIOUS ONE AND YOU WILL NOT LIKE MY RESPONSE
Quote from: vril-ya on September 20, 2014, 04:20:30 AM
here i circled three hovering ufos completely gone in the nasa version, just like all the other details. i rotated the image, so you can spot the difference easier. don't tell me these are "fibers on the photo or on the scanner" if you consider yourself intelligent.
If they are UFOs then I'm interested now.
Could you explain to me what details you can see in the pictures that shows that there are hovering UFOs?
Quote from: the seeker on September 20, 2014, 12:02:03 PM
Vril-ya: YOU ARE TREADING ON VERY THIN ICE; YOU ARE ADDRESSING A SENIOR MEMBER AND ADMINISTRATOR AND YOUR COMMENTS ARE NOT APPRECIATED; ATTACK THE POST, NOT THE POSTER...
ONE MORE COMMENT LIKE THE PREVIOUS ONE AND YOU WILL NOT LIKE MY RESPONSE
first of all we are all same here, noone is above or below. secondly, i wasn't "attacking" noone, just answering to the post in a civilized manner.
Quote from: Pimander on September 20, 2014, 12:27:05 PM
If they are UFOs then I'm interested now.
Could you explain to me what details you can see in the pictures that shows that there are hovering UFOs?
i have circled them, i think you will spot them without a problem.
Quote from: vril-ya on September 19, 2014, 07:32:13 AM
it has to do with the fact that we see the moon more pale and grey-ish looking from over here than it really is, just like earth looks more pale and greyish viewed from the moon than from the earth's orbit. i am not exactly sure for the cause of this phenomena, it's probably due to the huge amount of light from the sun reflecting of the earth and the moon.
What about the parts of the Moon in shadow. You should be able to see city lights with a pair of binoculars. I've looked at it with a fairly good scope and I can't see any lights.
Regarding the UFOs, I can obviously see the white patches but I can't work out what they are. Also, if they are brighter than the rest of the image then they must have either been airbrushed out or they are not in the original. The image that is labelled "org" would have some very bright points of light surely? The difference is not just a change of exposure or an increase in brightness.
What are the sources for the three versions of the image because the top one has white patches that the others don't. Is it a print from an original film? Is it Apollo, Clementine or a Lunar Orbiter? Something else (sorry I don't have the time to read every post again).
Quote from: vril-ya on September 18, 2014, 03:13:45 AM
and this is how it looks rotated 180° and contrast corrected. if you look at the surface details, you can tell the latter photo is the natural perspective of the shot.
(http://i24.servimg.com/u/f24/15/64/77/91/23085a11.jpg)
This image is from my website and is my work.
Link - http://spacetime.forumotion.com/t957-as17-lunar-structure
I don't mind people using it but jeeze if your gonna hotlink an image off my site at least provide a link to where you found it.
Just saying ::)
Greetings:
Our sentiments exactly.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and participation.
We registered at your site - nice. 8)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/lg50aa500a.gif)
tfw
Peace Love Light
Liberty & Equality or Revolution
Hec'el oinipikte (that we shall live)
Is this a square walled compound at the top center just to the left of the crater?
(http://www.holyconservancy.org/images/PLAN/MOON/AS08/AS10-28-4012A%202.jpg)
LSWONE.
Quote from: vril-ya on September 20, 2014, 04:20:30 AM
they both look bad, in this example nasa.gov version is even more overexposed.
They can both be bad and one be worse than the other, I was comparing the two versions between them, not judging overall quality.
Quote"keely" is just a shorthand i use for keith laney.
OK, I got it. :)
Quotei am not sure which "white spot" you refer to, but NASA photo sure does not show more detail, on the contrary, all the details are airbrushed away.
This is what I mean by "white spot".
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Lua_9.jpg)
Quotehere i circled three hovering ufos completely gone in the nasa version, just like all the other details.
If NASA took the photos, how can anyone like Keith Laney have access to supposedly unaltered versions?
Quotei rotated the image, so you can spot the difference easier.
No need for rotation. :)
Quotedon't tell me these are "fibers on the photo or on the scanner" if you consider yourself intelligent.
I don't tell you that because they don't look like fibres on the photo or on the scanner, they look like flaws on the print, but it's hard to say.
Quoteyou said yourself, module in the orbit can be in any position, and so can be the astonaut inside it, so he is never forced to take a picture at an unnatural angle as he can freely rotate.
That's true, they are not forced to take photos on a specific position, as they can rotate (although I don't know if they had enough space for that inside the capsule), but why should they do it? Aren't they used to look at things from any position?
Quotelet me illuminate you, perspective is the key element in photography.
No, the key element in photography is light.
Quotei suppose you couldn't take any other part of the photo because the other 99% of it shows so much more detail than the airbrushed version.
I could, but I already said I chose that.
Quotei think i already showed quite clearly that one you posted contains 45 shades of gray and virtually no detail at all, while the one i posted has 256 shades and loads of details, therefore, your claim is false.
OK, I think we need to know if what we call "detail" is the same thing to both of us, as, obviously, either both photos show the same detail or one of them shows more.
When I say that the NASA photo has more detail I mean that we can see smaller features than on the Keith Laney photo and, because of the smaller contrast, we can better distinguish more shades in shadows and highlight areas.
Look at the images below, the first from Keith Laney, the second from the NASA site:
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Lua_10.jpg)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Lua_11.jpg)
These are the differences I see between the two images on the marked areas:
1 - In the Keith Laney image we see only a white area, in the NASA version we can see that's a small crater, as we can see the shadow inside it;
2 - In this area the opposite happens, as it's a darker area and in the Keith Laney image everything in the area is dark, while in the NASA image we can see that there are several dark objects (probably rocks) in that area:
3 - In the Keith Laney image we can see only a white area, while in the NASA image we can see, again, some shadow, so it looks like a white boulder with its shadow;
4 - Another darker area that, in the Keith Laney image appears more like a whole dark area instead of some six or seven dark objects;
5, 6 and 7 - In these areas marked in yellow we can see some lines that look like resampled JPEG artefacts that do not exist on the NASA image.
That's why I think that the NASA version has more detail, because it allows me to see more and better defined things.
Quoteboth. as i said, no correction method can recover the lost information so your "adjusted" version is still just a grey stain of pixelization artifacts while the other one looks like a hd shot compared to it.
I agree that no correction method can recover lost information, but I really don't understand how you can say that the Keith Laney image looks like HD when compared with the NASA image. ???
Quoteit is, but the question is apsurd, anyone with sight can tell you that.
Apparently, we both have sight and have different opinions, so I don't think it's an absurd question.
Quoteindeed it does, as you tried to recover lost details by changing contrast.
I didn't try to recover lost details because that's impossible, the levels adjustments only make the differences between shades more noticeable.
Quotei just brought them to the same size to compare them adequately. you can scale them down, result is the same, NASA crop has by far less detail, if you can call those pixelization artifacts details at all.
Upsizing the image (with resampling) only makes the JPEG artefacts worse and mixes them with the rest of the image, so I don't see any reason to do it when you could have downsized the bigger image.
Quotefirst and the third.
Thanks, link corrected. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on September 20, 2014, 04:30:55 PM
If NASA took the photos, how can anyone like Keith Laney have access to supposedly unaltered versions?
This is why I was asking about the image labelled "org". If it is different to the other NASA images then why? How would the white "UFOs" version have fallen into the hands of this person if it was really something NASA were covering up?
Is it not more likely that the white dots were added which is why the "org" image is different?
The square is interesting. I take it this one is an "original"....
Quote from: Pimander on September 20, 2014, 05:46:32 PM
This is why I was asking about the image labelled "org". If it is different to the other NASA images then why? How would the white "UFOs" version have fallen into the hands of this person if it was really something NASA were covering up?
Is it not more likely that the white dots were added which is why the "org" image is different?
The square is interesting. I take it this one is an "original"....
the "org" is a photo from nasa.gov, so that pretty much should mean it is the original unless it has been airbrushed like it was. for your information, back in the day, NASA was selling negatives that had many anomalies in it, because people didn't have scanners and fast computers to easily expose them, so your satement that "Is it not more likely that the white dots were added" is simply insulting to the keith laney, especially when you consider the vast and long history of NASA criminal airbrushing of the space imagery.
Quote from: easynow on September 20, 2014, 01:53:14 PM
This image is from my website and is my work.
I don't mind people using it but jeeze if your gonna hotlink an image off my site at least provide a link to where you found it.
Just saying ::)
i know that image from the Moon Rising documentary by Jose Escamilla. i did a quick google image search for this frame and linked to the one in best resolution. who really want to know the source site could always do a search, as it was irrelevant in the context of the discussion.
Quote from: vril-ya on September 20, 2014, 08:47:35 PM
the "org" is a photo from nasa.gov, so that pretty much should mean it is the original unless it has been airbrushed like it was.
Can you provide me with a link then? I mean to prove it is what you are saying? HOw can you know this?
Quotefor your information, back in the day, NASA was selling negatives that had many anomalies in it, because people didn't have scanners and fast computers to easily expose them, so your satement that "Is it not more likely that the white dots were added" is simply insulting to the keith laney, especially when you consider the vast and long history of NASA criminal airbrushing of the space imagery.
I'm not insulting anyone, I'm asking a question. How do you know that is the unaltered original? Isn't it more likely that that one is altered if the others are the same and do not contain the white things?
I'm of the opinion that NASA have not been entirely honest with the public with certain footage. That does not mean I am about to insult my own training and start accepting every claim.
So do you really know those white things were not added later. Can you find that image in the NASA databases?
Quote from: vril-ya on September 20, 2014, 09:19:39 PM
who really want to know the source site could always do a search, as it was irrelevant in the context of the discussion.
It is polite and legally correct to recognise your sources. It is someones work and they have the right to identified as the "author".
QuoteIf NASA took the photos, how can anyone like Keith Laney have access to supposedly unaltered versions?
many old negatives are unaltered.
QuoteNo, the key element in photography is light.
and perspective.
QuoteI could, but I already said I chose that.
rest of the photo has more details than nasa ver.
QuoteWhen I say that the NASA photo has more detail I mean that we can see smaller features than on the Keith Laney photo and, because of the smaller contrast, we can better distinguish more shades in shadows and highlight areas.
no shape nor detail is discernable in nasa photo unilke the other one.
QuoteLook at the images below, the first from Keith Laney, the second from the NASA site...That's why I think that the NASA version has more detail, because it allows me to see more and better defined things.
nasa photo is in bigger resolution so the small amount of remaining detail looks sharper, of course. what i said is that most of the detail are airbrushed away.
QuoteI agree that no correction method can recover lost information, but I really don't understand how you can say that the Keith Laney image looks like HD when compared with the NASA image. ???
Apparently, we both have sight and have different opinions, so I don't think it's an absurd question.
please, look at those crops side by side and say that.
QuoteUpsizing the image (with resampling) only makes the JPEG artefacts worse and mixes them with the rest of the image, so I don't see any reason to do it when you could have downsized the bigger image.
i could have downsized it, same thing. relative amount of detail stays the same.
Quote from: vril-ya on September 21, 2014, 05:03:03 AM
many old negatives are unaltered.
This is unsolvable then for the moment. I'd have to see the negatives which is not going to happen and also have a way to verify what they were.
For now I guess I'll just have to stick to the data we can get our hands on. I simply can't accept unverifiable evidence at face value. That is what has held back UFOlogy and related disciplines for years. It is not scientific or ethical.
Get back to me if you can verify your claims. I'm not trying to be rude but in the interests of quality research I'm going to leave this one.
Quote from: Pimander on September 21, 2014, 01:14:44 PM
This is unsolvable then for the moment. I'd have to see the negatives which is not going to happen and also have a way to verify what they were.
For now I guess I'll just have to stick to the data we can get our hands on. I simply can't accept unverifiable evidence at face value. That is what has held back UFOlogy and related disciplines for years. It is not scientific or ethical.
Get back to me if you can verify your claims. I'm not trying to be rude but in the interests of quality research I'm going to leave this one.
i am not trying to be rude neither, but your comment is exactly why i suspect this forum has been infiltrated by shills. no amount of evidence would ever be enough, there is always a way to negate it, especially while the masses are so indifferent and ignorant, your job is an easy one. i am not saying you really are a shill, but constant negation that NASA is airbrushing photos and keeping the criminal coverup on every possible level sure makes me suspect it.
Quote from: vril-ya on September 20, 2014, 09:19:39 PM
i know that image from the Moon Rising documentary by Jose Escamilla. i did a quick google image search for this frame and linked to the one in best resolution. who really want to know the source site could always do a search, as it was irrelevant in the context of the discussion.
The only reason I even said something is because by hotlinking the image (putting img tags around my url) your using bandwith from my image account. If you would have copied the image and uploaded it to your own image hosting service, I wouldn't have cared or said anything.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry everyone, I didn't want to respond to this stuff and go off topic but I felt what I previously posted needed clarification.
Just for the record ... I'm all about sharing information and Anyone can use images from any of my websites and I don't mind at all just please copy the pic and upload it to your own image hosting site.
Cheers ;D
Quote from: ArMaP on September 20, 2014, 04:30:55 PM
If NASA took the photos, how can anyone like Keith Laney have access to supposedly unaltered versions?
easy answer...
Keith Laney is a digital imaging and software applications specialist and MOC image processor for the NASA-Ames' MOC MER2003 Landing Sites Project"I admire what you guys have done with the LO Copernicus stuff. I've got great versions of the same WA and NA images John Lear gave you guys. They used to be available online at Langley Research Center's website. Glad you tackled it, and this. - Keith Laney
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45keith_laney/index.html
Keith gave us permission to copy some of his work to Livingmoon... that is another area we have sorely lapsed in
Quote from: easynow on September 21, 2014, 10:44:53 PM
The only reason I even said something is because by hotlinking the image (putting img tags around my url) your using bandwith from my image account. If you would have copied the image and uploaded it to your own image hosting service, I wouldn't have cared or said anything.
Nice to see you still around Easynow
But seriously? image bandwidth is a thing of the past really. Most decent IP providers these days are offering unlimited bandwith for $5.00 a month full hosting service.
But sure I can post that image on our server ::)
Quote from: vril-ya on September 21, 2014, 07:56:11 PM
i am not trying to be rude neither, but your comment is exactly why i suspect this forum has been infiltrated by shills. no amount of evidence would ever be enough,
That is complete nonsense. I am happy to accept good evidence, I just happen to have high standards. That is why I'm not the easiest person to fool.
Quotethere is always a way to negate it,
There is not if you get good evidence.
Quoteespecially while the masses are so indifferent and ignorant,
They will remain ignorant if they are not shown how to evaluate evidence critically. That is the key to getting to the truth. Critical evaluuation of evidence. It is not meant to upset you but to make you think.
Quoteyour job is an easy one.
This is not my job. I am an interested enthusiast or hobby UFOlogist.
Quotei am not saying you really are a shill,
Good because I'm not. I am extremely critical of NASA. Take a look at my threads on NASA before you spout this rubbish.
Quotebut constant negation that NASA is airbrushing photos and keeping the criminal coverup on every possible level sure makes me suspect it.
Well your suspicions are ill founded.
Take a look around at my work before you decide to pretend to have an analysis of my contribution to this field.
Quote from: zorgon on September 21, 2014, 11:09:29 PM
Nice to see you still around Easynow
But seriously? image bandwidth is a thing of the past really. Most decent IP providers these days are offering unlimited bandwith for $5.00 a month full hosting service.
But sure I can post that image on our server ::)
You can host the image if you want or just let it go and don't worry about it.
I was just trying to protect my account. (too complicated to explain)
Thanks Zorgon and yeah I'm still around :D
On the Moon anomaly topic,
The A17 anomaly in Lobachevsky crater is imo fascinating and worth studying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3dXwIq-H8
Quote::)]That is complete nonsense. I am happy to accept good evidence, I just happen to have high standards. That is why I'm not the easiest person to fool.
nobody is trying to fool you. as zorgon said above KL is someone who had worked for NASA and even if he didn't they were always selling negatives to the public.
QuoteThere is not if you get good evidence.
shill will always reject the evidence NO MATTER of its quality. no evidence is "good evidence" for a shill, but you can tell they become silent as the evidence becomes irrefutable.
QuoteThey will remain ignorant if they are not shown how to evaluate evidence critically. That is the key to getting to the truth. Critical evaluuation of evidence. It is not meant to upset you but to make you think.
that's another subject, the main problem is they DON'T CARE, they don't even wanna listen about it, the small minority does, rest are totally degenerated. but, as i said, that's another subject.
QuoteThis is not my job. I am an interested enthusiast or hobby UFOlogist.
than you should know well NASA is a criminal agency that has conspired long ago to hide the truth and keep the humanity as ignorant as possible about it.
Vril...please forgive me, but I haven't followed this thread as closely as I would have liked. I used to take photos provided by other people and take a look to see 'What I think I see' and make some hammy videos...lol...
I haven't done that in a while as I have other 'duties' that have occupied my time.
If you could as a favor to me, provide me with the photo #'s of the ones you say are better. Whether they be Keith's or Nasa's or whoever. I'd like to take a shot at viewing them up close and personal so to speak...
If you don't have the time, that's ok too....I'm just so busy right now and I really don't have the time to go 'hunting' like I use to.
keep up the good work...
Peace
Rock 8)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on September 22, 2014, 02:03:18 AM
Vril...please forgive me, but I haven't followed this thread as closely as I would have liked. I used to take photos provided by other people and take a look to see 'What I think I see' and make some hammy videos...lol...
I haven't done that in a while as I have other 'duties' that have occupied my time.
If you could as a favor to me, provide me with the photo #'s of the ones you say are better. Whether they be Keith's or Nasa's or whoever. I'd like to take a shot at viewing them up close and personal so to speak...
If you don't have the time, that's ok too....I'm just so busy right now and I really don't have the time to go 'hunting' like I use to.
keep up the good work...
Peace
Rock 8)
of course. the frame number is AS08-12-2196. ArMaP claimed that version from nasa.gov shows more detail than holyconservance.com version. i have already proved him wrong but here are the links so you be the judge.
http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/highres/AS08/AS08-12-2196.JPG (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/highres/AS08/AS08-12-2196.JPG)
http://www.directlinkupload.com/uploads/93.142.160.60/AS08-12-2196A.jpg (http://www.directlinkupload.com/uploads/93.142.160.60/AS08-12-2196A.jpg)
Thanks a bunch! I'll take a look. Hopefully we can come to a consenses.
Or not. Lol ;D
Rock
Quote from: vril-ya on September 22, 2014, 01:40:17 AM
shill will always reject the evidence NO MATTER of its quality. no evidence is "good evidence" for a shill, but you can tell they become silent as the evidence becomes irrefutable.
Stick to the evidence instead of bleating on about shills please. ::)
i would like to get the thread to the original course, Tsiolkovsky being a lake as it has long been suspected. here is that color shot of the Tsiolkovsky lake from Terzinski's lecture.
(http://s28.postimg.org/6izak6rt9/Tsiolkovsky.jpg)
and here is another one from the same lecture, taken from another altitude
(http://s11.postimg.org/hd7n5l2z7/Tsiolkovsky2.jpg)
and finally Tsiolkovsky as seen in AS08-12-2196 (colorized version from holyconservance)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jSjE1NO06r4/U9WYurFBx9I/AAAAAAAAAes/Zd86xgFvTSE/s1600/Tsiolkovsky+1.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Bm3HSJRvJAc/U9WYv4ekzFI/AAAAAAAAAe0/HO7TLSx_eWA/s1600/Tsiolkovsky+2.jpg)
(http://s18.postimg.org/5z1y7c015/image.jpg)
Here is an excerpt from Geogre Adamski's book Inside The Space Ships:
Ramu said, "You are now looking at the familiar side of your Moon, but we are not landing on it. The image is being reflected on the screen from one of the telescopes which was not in operation the first time you were with us. Look closely as we approach the surface and you will note considerable activity. In the numerous large craters which you see from Earth you will notice very large hangars — which you do not see! Notice, too, that the terrain here is very similar to your deserts.
"We have built these hangars on such a scale in order that much larger ships than this one can enter easily. Also within these hangars are living quarters for a number of workers and their families, provided with every comfort. Water in abundance is piped in from the mountains, just as you have done on your Earth for the purpose of bringing fertility to your desert areas.
"When a ship enters these hangars, a process of depressurizing the passengers takes place. This requires about twenty-four hours. Were this not done, the people would experience the greatest discomfort in stepping out on the Moon. Such a depressurization process is not yet conceivable to Earthlings. They understand too little about the bodily functions and their control. Actually, Human lungs are able to adjust themselves to very low as well as high pressure, if deflation or inflation is not done too quickly. If hurried, death would result."
I would gladly have undergone the necessary deflation for the privilege of actually landing on the Moon. There was nothing demanding my immediate return to Earth.
But with a sympathetic smile, Ramu said, "We have many things in store for you besides showing you the other side of your satellite before we return you to Earth. Watch closely now, for we are approaching the Moon's rim. Notice those clouds forming. They are light and appear to be coming from nowhere, as clouds often do. Most of them gain no density whatsoever but dissipate almost immediately. Yet, under favorable conditions, some occasionally do gain density. It is the shadows of these which have been seen through telescopes from Earth.
"Now we are approaching the side never seen from Earth. Look at the surface directly below us. See, there are mountains in this section. You can even see snow on the peaks of the higher ones, and a growth of heavy timber on the lower slopes. On this side of the Moon are a number of mountain lakes and rivers. You can see one of the lakes below. The rivers empty into a very large body of water.
"Now you can see a number of communities of varying sizes, both in the valleys and on the mountain slopes. Preferences of people here, as anywhere else, vary in regard to living at one or another altitude. And here, as elsewhere, the natural activities to support life are very similar to those wherever mankind is found.
"Had we time to land and be depressurized," Ramu went on, "and then travel about, you would personally meet some of the people. But as far as studying the surface of the Moon is concerned, the way you are viewing it now is far more practical."
I realized the truth of this as a fair-sized city assembled on the screen in front of us. Actually, we seemed to be drifting over the rooftops, and I could see people walking along clean, narrow streets. There was a more thickly built-up central section which I assumed to be the business district, although it was not crowded with people. I noticed no cars of any kind parked along the streets, although I did see several vehicles, moving just above the streets, since they appeared to have no wheels. In size they were comparable to our buses, varying from one another in about the same degree.
Ramu explained, "A few of the people here do have their own conveyances, but for the most part they depend on the public utilities at which you are looking."
Just outside the city proper was a comparatively large cleared section with an immense building along one side. It looked like a hangar and Ramu confirmed this by saying, "We have to construct a few hangars near the cities for convenience in landing with the supplies we bring to the population here — everything not available locally for their needs. In exchange, they furnish us with certain minerals found on the Moon."
i believe adamski as there are many details in his case he really coudn't have known unless he experienced it and his description of the far side of the moon is yet another confirmation that far side of the moon indeed has lakes and rivers, lush vegetation and a thriving civilization all over it.
Quote from: vril-ya on September 22, 2014, 03:11:07 AM
maybe if you stop bleating about not being one ;) if we are to get to the truth,
The problem with the 'truth' is neither side has it on their side. Believers will not accept any criticism of what they think they see. While Skeptics will not see what you see.
Here we try to look at it differently. Present the evidence... then everyone can choose what to believe or not. Calling people out generally degenerates into a bash fest.
ArMaP is a skeptic... we all know that... but to call people shills because they cannot see it your way does your credibility no good.
Over 35 years ago I heard a debate between an 'expert' ladt archaeologist and Eric von Danekin. This was the DAY ONE of Ancient Aliens beliefs
Eric kept his cool throughout while the 'expert' had no explanation and resorted to name calling and attack his credentials.
Eric maintained throughout that he is merely presenting what HE thinks and asking the viewer to come to their own conclusion based on the evidence and not the person presenting it
At the end... Eric was declared the winner of that debate, not because the host believed him, but because he kept his cool and stuck to the facts
ArMaP is here because we have found a few things that are 'unexplainable' from his perspective.
The rest of us are a little jaded by all the fakery out there and the stuff that truly is simply pareidolia
Now Kieth Laney has the honor of being the Grand Father of Anomaly hunters and has some of the best material on the net, but he also has some that make you laugh, like his RAT on Mars
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45keith_laney/04images/Mars/Rat/WhatpartofRatdontyouget.jpg)
As long as we keep mixing the real stuff with the obvious misinterpreted stuff and the deliberately create stuff... we will never get anywhere.
One of ArMaPs favorites is this one ; the one on the right merely color shifted for contrast
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/AS11_41_6156/Structure01B.png)(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/AS11_41_6156/Structure01A.png)
Seems NASA forgot to brush out that one as it can be found easily without enhancing anything in the original here
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-41-6156HR.jpg
In fact if you look at the whole area you see a pattern of straight lines that look exactly like the buried ruins in Iraq near Ur
Quote from: zorgon on September 22, 2014, 06:05:03 AM
The problem with the 'truth' is neither side has it on their side. Believers will not accept any criticism of what they think they see. While Skeptics will not see what you see.
Here we try to look at it differently. Present the evidence... then everyone can choose what to believe or not. Calling people out generally degenerates into a bash fest.
i agree namecalling leads nowhere, i just get bit suspicious when someone is overly skeptical, but then again many people are, that's how it is, at least for now.
QuoteNow Kieth Laney has the honor of being the Grand Father of Anomaly hunters and has some of the best material on the net, but he also has some that make you laugh, like his RAT on Mars
i wouldn't be so quick to reject the "rat" on mars. from my research, not only does mars have a flora and fauna but a thriving surface civilization of humans like us.
QuoteOne of ArMaPs favorites is this one ; the one on the right merely color shifted for contrast...In fact if you look at the whole area you see a pattern of straight lines that look exactly like the buried ruins in Iraq near Ur
that's an interesting find, they may be ruins upthere, but i believe most of these structures are active.
---
further more regarding the mars, there is a book called UFO contact from planet Acart by brazilian peasant Arthur Berlet. he talks how he was taken to this planet Acart for 8 days back in 1958. (book was first published in 1965) that is sad to be 62 million miles from Earth at the time (Mars orbit) and has 2 ARTIFICIAL satellites. he describes one of the satellites from upclose as being sqaure-oval shape. NOTE, neither of the Mars moons was not photographed untill 1971! Acart is said to be populated with 20,000,000,000 tall blonde humans. book is written in a simple mans tongue but contains big number of details this poor peasant really couldn't have known back in '58, other than shape of Mars's moon, he describes 2 kinds of propulsion, one used in atmosphere (up to 10,000 km) and another for interplanetary travel utilizing the magnetic field lines. he mentions a need to siginfically slowing down when entering planets boundary envelope and reversing the magnetic fields, layers of different color halos around the earth. he describes their cities and homes in detail, goverment structure, huge seaside resort, mountain cities, factory that produces all equipment including their saucers and much much more. you can read it and decide for yourself if it is a true case.
https://worldtracker.org/media/library/Metaphysics%20&%20Spirituality/Wendelle%20Stevens%20UFO%20CONTACT%20FROM%20PLANET%20ACART.pdf (https://worldtracker.org/media/library/Metaphysics%20&%20Spirituality/Wendelle%20Stevens%20UFO%20CONTACT%20FROM%20PLANET%20ACART.pdf)
visit and share
http://moonexposed.blogspot.com (http://moonexposed.blogspot.com)