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

[vril-ya]

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.

[vril-ya]

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.

[Pimander]

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?

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.

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?

[Pimander]

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".

[vril-ya]

If NASA took the photos, how can anyone like Keith Laney have access to supposedly unaltered versions?

many old negatives are unaltered.

No, the key element in photography is light.

and perspective.

I could, but I already said I chose that.

rest of the photo has more details than nasa ver.

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.

no shape nor detail is discernable in nasa photo unilke the other one.

Look 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.

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.
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.

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.

i could have downsized it, same thing. relative amount of detail stays the same.

[Pimander]

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.

[vril-ya]

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.

[easynow]

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

[zorgon]

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

[zorgon]

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   

[Pimander]

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.

there is always a way to negate it,

There is not if you get good evidence.

especially 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.

your job is an easy one.

This is not my job.  I am an interested enthusiast or hobby UFOlogist.

i 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.

but 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.

[easynow]

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 



On the Moon anomaly topic,

The A17 anomaly in Lobachevsky crater is imo fascinating and worth studying.

[vril-ya]

]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.

There 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.

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.

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.

This 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.

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

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 

[vril-ya]

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 

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://www.directlinkupload.com/uploads/93.142.160.60/AS08-12-2196A.jpg