alien presence on moon???

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow">Edit: notice the dark silhouette appearing behind the image anomaly.</font><br /><br />Looks like sharpening to me. If you're not familiar with the term wrt photo manipulation then google it and/or USM (unsharp mask).<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The question is: does that belong in the image or not?</font><br /><br />What are you referring to; the sharpening or the "anomaly" ? If it's the latter then I'd say no because I think it's lint or the like. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

* Looks like sharpening to me. If you're not familiar with the<br />* term wrt photo manipulation then google it and/or USM<br />* (unsharp mask).<br /><br />It's difficult to make the magnification, because when you interpolate, you also help to blend it in.<br /><br />If you do not interpolate at all, the proportions might get distorted. <br /><br />Yeah, I'd say it's a lint. Or a giant sphinx on the moon.

 

[yevaud]

You can quite literally use Microsoft Office Picture Manager, alter the brightness and contrast, and show it to be no more than a terrain feature no different than all that surround the "anomaly." All that's "anomalous" about it is a tiny part - a few pixels at most - that are either reflected light, or a few bad pixels.<br /><br />[Chortle] <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[aphh]

* and show it to be no more than a terrain feature no<br />* different than all that surround the "anomaly."<br /><br />Aren't you forgetting it's missing from atleast 2 pictures, that have been taken only seconds apart? Certainly a well defined terrain feature would show in the other pictures, but they contain no trace of it.

 

[yevaud]

[further chortle]<br /><br />*Ahem*<br /><br />Ah, does the sun not alter it's position every instant? Impinging on one spot at one moment, another the next?<br /><br />Does a data drop out involving a few pixels not occur here and there on occasion?<br /><br />Really now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[aphh]

Data drop is out of the question, these are film, not electronic. Electronic data handling has only occurred when digitizing and storing.<br /><br />I put images 2159 and 2160 on top of each other in different layers, and besides 2160 missing the image anomaly, the features and lighting are very similar to each other.<br /><br />I'd say it's a lint on the scanner.<br /><br />Edit: but it's a decision, not fact.

 

[yevaud]

<i>Data drop is out of the question, these are film</i><br /><br />Data drop out in this context refers to pixels being corrupted or lost, whether film or digital.<br /><br /><i>Electronic data handling has only occurred when digitizing and storing. </i><br /><br />Explain to me when you have actually handled and utilized the actual film. Oh, sorry, that's right - you have only seen and "analyzed" <b>digitized</b> images on the Internet. Forgot about that, did you?<br /><br />Btw, now you have offended me. Mind explaining all about your non-schooling in Remote Sensing, Image Analysis, and GIS? Because I certainly have it.<br /><br />Oh wait. You already acknowledged that earlier in this thread.<br /><br />"Out of the question?"<br /><br />[Triple chortle]<br /><br />This is getting beyond pointless. First you state that you have no expertise in this subject matter. Then you identify anomalies that don't exist. You claim conspiracies and then deny you said as much. It's shown you did in fact say so, but then have a facile response why "but that's different." You have really analyzed nothing, yet discount actual related professional scientific reasons why you are wrong.<br /><br />In short, you are all over the map. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[aphh]

* Btw, now you have offended me. Mind explaining all about<br />* your non-schooling in Remote Sensing, Image Analysis, and<br />* GIS? Because I certainly have it. <br /><br />I have engineering degree in broadcast technologies (non university). I also have 15 years of experience in image handling, both analog and digital.<br /><br />I just didn't think it would come down to who has the best degree and diploma, because when it comes down to that, it's about making a political decision, not factual.

 

[billslugg]

<font color="yellow">engineering degree in broadcast technologies, non university</font><br />What do you mean by non-university? Is it rigorous but not recognized or non-rigorous but not recognized?<br />I am a little bit sensitive about people claiming that they have engineering degrees. I went through a difficult time in getting an Electrical Engineering degree from Penn State in 1974. At that time we had Electrical, Mechanical, Civil, Chemical, Industrial, and Agricultural. Any title is OK with me as long as it came from the same set of courses any other engineer would have had to choose from. Actually I respect AG Eng more than any because they had to master every single discipline to some degree. And it was a fairly high degree! <br /><br />EDIT: I may have have told this before but it persists. I came home at Xmas in 1971 with a .33 that semester. It brought my Cum down to 2.01. I was 1 one hundredth of a point from flunking out at the height of the Vietnam War. Only my draft number of 331 allowed me to sleep at night. I went on to graduate 63rd out of 68 at PSU in 1974 in Electrical Engineering. The way I like to look at it is that I graduated 63rd out of the 347 people who had declared Electrical Engineering as their major at the beginning of our Junior year. I went on to retire at age 45 and spend my nights posting on SDC. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Political?<br /><br />God, you're funny.<br /><br />I would postulate that your expertise, tweaking images and broadcasting for TV, is hardly the same thing. Your expertise, hell, your <i>experience</i> in utilizing and analyzing imagery and radiometric data from orbital platforms is nil.<br /><br />I don't know what your Senior thesis was, or if you even did one, but mine was "an analysis of urban heat islands utilizing MODIS." That was in the Geography program. The focus in the Planetary and Space Science program was Atmospheric Physics and general Planetary Science. In point of fact, I was part of the team to build a flipping satellite, the TERRIERS project, which imaged the upper atmosphere using CAT Scan Algorithms.<br /><br />The Tomographic Experiment using Radiative Recombinative Ionospheric EUV and Radio Sources - TERRIERS<br /><br />A far cry from "Let's broadcast a Game Show."<br /><br />In short, you <i>do not have any expertise with which to categorically state the things you have stated.</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[aphh]

If you're interested, <br /><br />there are 2 kinds of engineers here; university and technical institute. I am the latter, so I am a broadcast engineer with a degree from the technical institute.<br /><br />I've worked in facilities, where the image really is everything.

 

[aphh]

* I don't know what your Senior thesis was, or if you even<br />* did one, but mine was "an analysis of urban heat islands<br />* utilizing MODIS."<br /><br />Mine wasn't as elaborate, I agree. Mine was about compression of bandwidth for acquisition and recording of broadcast signals. <br /><br />It's got atleast something to do with communications with a spacecraft.

 

[yevaud]

Perhaps so, and I certainly would not consider it to be lightweight. Merely not in the same realm of expertise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[billslugg]

APHH<br />OK, where are you from? Here in GA USA there several kinds of Engineer. There is a professional engineer. Licensed by the state. You get a 4 year degree, you work for 3 years under an PE, you take an exam, you get a PE certificate. You can look at a drawing, stamp it and it will stand up in court. That is not what I have. I have only a degree from an accredited university. I can call myself an engineer. I cannot call myself a professional engineer.<br />If I got a degree from a technical institute in some area of engineering, I would call myself a "technician" with a degree from a technical institute. The term "Engineer" should be reserved for someone with a four year degree from an accredited institute in an engineering discipline. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[aphh]

* I would call myself a "technician" with a degree from a<br />* technical institute. The term "Engineer" should be reserved<br />* for someone with a four year degree from an accredited<br />* institute in an engineering discipline.<br /><br />I think you're right, and I don't mind if I am called a technician. <br /><br />To be honest, I myself only consider engineers to be those from a university, they are called Engineers with a Diploma here in Tampere, Finland. All others are called just engineers (coming from a institute).

 

[yevaud]

Ah, Finland.<br /><br />A technology powerhouse.<br /><br />And I do mean that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[aphh]

We're detail oriented here (atleast some are).

 

[yevaud]

The home of the creators of IRC, Nokia, and Linux say you're correct. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[aphh]

Yes, but now I want to get into space business. <br /><br />I realize arguing about some detail in a image on messageboard does not help, but it was fun nonetheless.

 

[yevaud]

We'll debate anything with anyone here.<br /><br />We merely have certain standards we feel that must be met. That's really all, and our hammering you with them is certainly nothing personal. As you might imagine, we get all kinds here, up to and including those who wish only to achieve an audience. This is not to insist that is what you were doing, but we apply those standards to everyone. Including ourselves.<br /><br />Moderators have been asked to prove their claims and make them stick before here, no more no less than any member. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[billslugg]

APHH<br />FINLAND BABY!!! Those guys know how to make something work!! I went to Jarvenpaa back in 1990. I wanted a mechanical device, those guys are like, Ho Hummmm! Ask me to make a million of them! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[aphh]

* including those who wish only to achieve an audience. This<br />* is not to insist that is what you were doing, but we apply<br />* those standards to everyone.<br /><br />I wasn't for the audience at first, but got provoked and then decided to give it a go. I realize there are religions, but I am not part of the UFO religion.<br /><br />Phenomena can be studied along more serious research, not commit unnecessary resources to it, but acknowledge a phenomena when seeing one. And put aside for potential further reference. Just in case.

 

[aphh]

Hope you visited during summertime. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[lsbd]

AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br /><br />DIE THREAD DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br /><br />Dammit, sometimes a rock is just a rock. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[bearack]

Ah, you Fin's will soon be a household name with Lunix. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>