alien presence on moon???

[lsbd]

<font color="yellow">When I think about it, they were asked to film that region thoroughly. Why? </font><br /><br />so they could get 4 shots of the alien mothership...and then photoshop it out of 3 of them.

 

[aphh]

* Artifact abounds in image processing, and in point of fact<br />* what with various radiation effects on sensitive film, I<br />* would *expect* to see a fair amount.<br /><br />I'm fine with artifact, it's just that the anomaly blends a bit too well with the background. Blending means anti-aliasing, which means that pixels are composited using equation, which makes the pixels appear as if they were naturally imaged together.<br /><br />If this was to be achieved later by post-processing, it would be a technical challenge to make the pixels match to create a natural look.<br />

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"подводн-корабль 1???? "</font><br /><br />Оно иÑпользует водочку Ð´Ð»Ñ Ñ‚Ð¾Ð¿Ð»Ð¸Ð²Ð°? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Artifact, as a term in Image Processing and Analysis, covers a lot of territory. A single anomalous pixel can be easily made to appear as "normal," as you suggest, by performing a Linear Stretch of the Greytone values (stretching 0 and 1 to 0-256, as an example). This is very routine process, done with most images.<br /><br />Another very real possibility - already peripherally commented on by several of you - is that the images were not taken at the same time and from the exact same orbit. When your look angle changes, various objects can appear or disappear due to altered sun position and altered camera/sensor angle.<br /><br />In point of fact, it would likely take hours to work through all of the possible causes for artifact. <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]

http://www.zweg.com/dump/photo/struktuuri.jpg<br /><br />That's no radiation. That is one of the rare photographic evidence of the mothership. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[aphh]

* is that the images were not taken at the same time and<br />* from the exact same orbit.<br /><br />According to NASA, 4 images of crater Pirquet were taken on the same orbit. Only image 2159 shows the anomaly.

 

[lsbd]

funny how people can argue for hours over a piece of lint on a camera lens. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[aphh]

* funny how people can argue for hours over a piece of lint<br />* on a camera lens. <br /><br />That you, or anybody else here for that matter, could not prove to be a lint on the lens.<br /><br />"Lint" once more: http://www.zweg.com/dump/photo/struktuuri.jpg<br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

I rather doubt the orbital parameters for each pass were identical. It's just plain not possible in the way you mean. Even a few hundred meters one way or another can have a major effect. <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>

 

[lsbd]

<font color="yellow">According to NASA, 4 images of crater Pirquet were taken on the same orbit. Only image 2159 shows the anomaly.</font><br /><br />was looking out the window the other day. in a time span of a few minutes, I glanced out 4 times...only once did a leaf blow across in front of the window.<br /><br />same concept

 

[lsbd]

I can't tell you what it is..but I can tell you what it's not... a frelling alien mothership

 

[aphh]

* I rather doubt the orbital parameters for each pass were<br />* identical. It's just plain not possible in the way you mean.<br />* Even a few hundred meters one way or another can have<br />* a major effect.<br /><br />4 images of crater Pirquet were taken on orbit 62. So the images have been taken only minutes, if not seconds, apart.<br />

 

[aphh]

* I can't tell you what it is..but I can tell you what it's not... a<br />* frelling alien mothership<br /><br />And I'm telling you, this is the only unfiltered photographic evidence so far of the mothership. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />

 

[yevaud]

You *do* realize that what we refer to as an "orbit" is not a picture-perfect (<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />) trajectory? Over many passes, there is an averaging effect, and equally so many tiny corrections.<br /><br />And yes, even passing over the same point of geography even minutes apart can produce quite a range of effects. You could have here, for example, where the single image of the four has sunlight impinging on the area imaged. Voila. Something has "appeared" where there seemed to be nothing before. <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]

* You *do* realize that what we refer to as an "orbit" is not<br />* a picture-perfect () trajectory? Over many passes, there is<br />* an averaging effect, and equally so many tiny corrections.<br /><br />Each cycle a spacecraft orbits a heavely body is counted. Therefore, if NASA says the images were taken during orbit 62, it means they had already orbited the moon 61 times.<br /><br />Now, knowing that they were about 60 nautical miles above, it would be possible to calculate how many seconds could only have passed between each shot. <br /><br />Edit: on that site they refer it as 'revolution'. So the images were taken during revolution 62.

 

[lsbd]

<font color="yellow">And I'm telling you, this is the only unfiltered photographic evidence so far of the mothership.</font><br /><br />and I am telling you, there is nothing in that image that even remotely appears to be anything that could be considered to be an alien mothership. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[Swampcat]

РадиациÑ? Где Ñ ÑƒÐ¿Ð¾Ð¼Ñнул радиацию? Я делал шутку о подводном корабле коÑмоÑа. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[aphh]

* and I am telling you, there is nothing in that image that<br />* even remotely appears to be anything that could be<br />* considered to be an alien mothership.<br /><br />Sorry LSDB, but I think you got busted. There was nothing that required debunking, yet you jumped on it.<br /><br />Hence, I take it that THERE IS something, that required debunking...

 

[aphh]

Njet ponimai, tavaritsh Kapitan.

 

[yevaud]

That formula is:<br /><br />T_o = 2Pi (R_p + H') Sqrt(R_p + H' / G_s R_p²)<br /><br />Where:<br /><br />T_o = Orbital Period, in seconds<br />R_p = Planetary Radius, in Km<br />H' = Orbital Altitude, in Km, above the planet's surface<br />G_s = Gravitational Acceleration at the planet's surface (for example, 0.00981 Km/s at the Earth's surface) <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]

Thanks, I'll promise to have a look at the formula (looks interesting), but it's already late here and I need to meet the girls.<br /><br />Thanks again!

 

[yevaud]

Enjoy! <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>

 

[lsbd]

dude, you are the one who brought it up.<br />you are the one who, despite any proof what-so-ever, keep insisting that it is an alien mothership<br /><br />I am not trying to "debunk" anything. only to point out much more plausible and simpler explanations for a film defect/speck of dust than "alien mothership" <br /><br />that and I was close to hitting "galaxy" status so I needed to pad my post count. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

Ð’Ñ‹ ванты и ваша Ð¿Ð¾Ð´Ð²Ð¾Ð´Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð»Ð¾Ð´ÐºÐ° летаниÑ! <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]

I didn't claim it to be a mothership at first, <br /><br />but as soon as I realized there are professional debunkers here (aswell) I decided to give it a go.<br /><br />It's an anomaly, and I asked what is it. The film and the camera aswell as scanning are fine, trust me.