180km wide lake discovered on the far side of the moon

[ArMaP]

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.

and how the original actually looks

The "original"? Does that mean that Keith Laney was the one taking the photo? 

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:



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.

[Pimander]

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.

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.

[ArMaP]

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?

I'm getting confused and probably should have stopped drinking wine about one hour ago.

Probably.

I 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.

[Pimander]

Which of my posts are you talking about?

I was talking about the one with the charts (the penultimate one before I asked).

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.

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.

[vril-ya]

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



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.



another example is AS10-30-4349



compared to



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.



here is the comparison.

nasa.gov ver.:



holyconservance ver.:



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.




likwise goes for the rest of the photo. so, by which insane logic does the photo you posted show more details?

...

[ArMaP]

LPI is directly associated with NASA, it's the same gang.

To me, being "associated with" is not the same as being "it".

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.

I don't think it shows much more detail than the level adjusted version that I posted.

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°.

Turning an image 90º is no obfuscation. 

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

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.

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.

It's 0.8%.
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.

now, 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.

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.

That's true, I said that on my post.

likwise goes for the rest of the photo. so, by which insane logic does the photo you posted show more details?

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)


Now look at the same area from the NASA site, with levels adjusted:


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.

[Amaterasu]

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.

[vril-ya]

To me, being "associated with" is not the same as being "it".

photos are made and edited by NASA, LPI just catalogs their photos.

I 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.

Turning an image 90º is no obfuscation. 

really? you think they do it for fun to play mind tricks on you?

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.

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.

Yellow? That's green.

it's a yellow-green nuance and that's completely irrelevant to the subject of matter.

That'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.

Because 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.

Now 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.

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.

[zorgon]

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?





And NASA didn't air brush back then... they used real brushes

[vril-ya]

Which portion of the moon are those images from?

if you refer to AS15-87-11703, Macrobius A & B.

[vril-ya]

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.

[zorgon]

WHOLE 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?

[vril-ya]

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.

So...

...then why can we not see the City Lights like we can on Earth?

[zorgon]

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

[zorgon]

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