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

[vril-ya]

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

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/

[ArMaP]

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.

WHY 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.

I 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.

They 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".

[ArMaP]

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

Then why do they look worse?

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.

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.

really? 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.

lol. do you know anything about perspective and photography?

I do.

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.

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.

you 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?

it'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.

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.

What I meant was that I said that the photo with more detail has less shades of grey.

right, 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.

the question is absurd.

I don't think so, isn't that what we're talking about?

no contrast correction can bring back the lost information from the photograph.

Obviously, but that has nothing to do with what I said.

here 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.

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.

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).

P.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.

[ArMaP]

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/

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.

[vril-ya]

Then why do they look worse?

they both look bad, in this example nasa.gov version is even more overexposed.

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.

"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.

First 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.

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.

let me illuminate you, perspective is the key element in photography.

No, 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.

What 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.

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.

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.

I 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.

Obviously, but that has nothing to do with what I said.

indeed it does, as you tried to recover lost details by changing contrast.

Why 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.

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.

first and the third.

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.

[SNIP!]

[The Seeker]

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

[Pimander]

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?

[vril-ya]

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.

[vril-ya]

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.

[Pimander]

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).

[easynow]

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.

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 

[thorfourwinds]

Greetings:

Our sentiments exactly.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and participation.

We registered at your site - nice.   



tfw
Peace Love Light
Liberty & Equality or Revolution

Hec'el oinipikte  (that we shall live)

[LSWONE]

Is this a square walled compound at the top center just  to the left  of the  crater?



LSWONE.

[ArMaP]

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.

"keely" is just a shorthand i use for keith laney.

OK, I got it.

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.

This is what I mean by "white spot".

here 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?

i rotated the image, so you can spot the difference easier.

No need for rotation.

don'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.

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.

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?

let me illuminate you, perspective is the key element in photography.

No, the key element in photography is light.

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.

I could, but I already said I chose that.

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.

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:




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.

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.

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.

it 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.

indeed 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.

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.

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.

first and the third.

Thanks, link corrected.

[Pimander]

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"....