Farside photo

johnlear · Farside photo

This is a photo of the farside I just received. Please take a look and share your comments:

Thanks.

Vril1 · Lunar image

Hi John.
Think it´s a great image, it´s very detailed and just filled with surprises.
Have magnified a part that seems very interesting.

Have tried to find a Lunar image with same details, without luck! Confused

-
And for one more time it just confirms that the moon have many surprises! Smile

chaiyah

With my equipment I can't make heads nor tails out of it.

Sorry, John.

Chai

Vril1

Hello John.
In a way it shows how detailed even the Lunar Orbiter images probably are when they are not "properly/effective" hand-colored, hand-retouched etc! - what is the area named? Can we get other pictures from the area? Smile

johnlear

Vril1

Hi again John.
Oc.Pr. Theres not really any good pictures of that area. At least if we are talking about Apollo images. But the last pic. Is that a Lunar Orb.-picture?
I tried to make a magnifying. It looks like it´s a very well doctored picture. Meaning the receau-lines are laying underneath the rocks and tunneling up and down!! Laughing

- OK that´s really a evidence showing how important it is to be very carefull when trying to figure out what NASA/JPL is showing to us. And what´s the purpose? Do they think we are idiots? - The same goes for JAXA/Selene/Kaguya! - I´m so dissapointed about the Japanese JAXA-folks. (In another Topic/thread is Benjamin Fulford talking about the Japanese shadow warriors will kill western leaders if they are not soon starting to save the world(global warming,war,UFO/ET-dislosure,world economy for all etc.etc.) Maybe they should think about leading the Japanese Space Program without "advises" from NASA/JPL - Or they have probably never heard about NASA/JPL as leading JAXA,ESA.

Look a the lines tunneling up and down! Wink

johnlear

johnlear

Here is the photo again I received recently taken by the Lunar Orbiter series about 41 years ago of the farside of the moon:

Here is a high definition photo taken by the Japanese sponsored Kayhuga near the same area:

Here is an enlarged section of the Lunar Orbiter photo:

Here is an enlarged section of the Japanese high definition photo from Kayhuga:

Vril1

Hi again John.
Sorry I said reseau-lines. Just couldn´t figure out what the lines purpose were. But still in the magnifying you can see some of the features are covering over the line!? - How can that be?
And even the lunar Orbiter pictures was doctored/tampered! Just look at Tsiolkovsky. And lots of other images. Smile

In this particular JAXA blow up I think some image-doctors/analystics have forgotten to clean their eye-glasses Wink

And I was reffering to a topic I have been reading on this site regarding Benjamin Fulford.
http://johnlearsmoon.myfastforum....AL_SOLUTION_UPDATED_about152.html(I don´t share his view but just thought it was funny to show that NASA/JPL was the head of the Japanese JAXA and the Japanese should try to be an independent organisation) - It was not a good comparison, sorry. Embarassed

I´m danish Wink

johnlear

If this is the best imaging China can do 41 years after Lunar Orbiter then China needs to stick to doing laundry.

Chinese lunar photo

Lunar Orbiter photo 1967

Vril1

Hi again John. Smile

Thought it was a peace of laundry! Very Happy

But still - can you explain the lines covered.! Wink

Think it shows some tampering, but still there´s lots of very exiting things going on in the picture.

johnlear

Vril1 · Lunar Orbiter photo - Or??

Hello John. Smile

And everybody please have patient with me! Smile

But it still bother me that the spliced film-strips are not unbroken through the whole picture!J
But I have a theory I have been trying to lay some fundaments underneath. – It´s just a theory! Idea

Could it be that someone have been giving you the photo as a genuine Lunar Orbiter photo, but with the knowledge that it really was another mission photo? or someone don´t want to release it as a whole photo? – The reasons for these questions are the fact that this photo is not made by strips glued/spliced together!.
If you have a negative, exposed the dark areas get white and the light areas get dark. That means on the negative you can see through the negative where a black object on the positive print appeares, because there´s nothing on the emulsion. And vice verca.
If you lay a whole transparent blank negative just with drawn lines (acting like cuttings/sliced negatives) underneath the whole unbroken negative. And then expose it. The result will come up just like the one shown here in this topic. Because it´s only where there is no light on the exposure you can see the actual cutting! You should be able to see it unbroken through the whole positive exposure if it was real!

johnlear · Re: Lunar Orbiter photo - Or??

Vril1

Hi again John. Smile

It took some time to read and clear out what possible could be the reason for the different views we had. regarding the LO-photo in this topic.
John Lear wrote:
"Vril1 you obviously have no idea how the Lunar Orbiter photos were created and you obviously don't want to find out. If I had the time I would spoon feed you the information but I don't. There are hundreds of pages on the web how the camera worked, how the photos were taken and how the information was sent to earth."

No/yes, but that´s one of the reasons why I went to this site and after the invitation to give an opinion, that´s what I´m doing.
And I still know a bit about how photographs (especially analog!) is created. But the whole area around the “mix” of analog “enhanced”
Color-changed,masked,burned, over-exposed, under-exposed, retouched etc. And then digitally enhanced, retouched,color-changed, compression,
High-passing etc. Etc. – Is a whole special “area” inside “The Art” of “Enhancement” and Retouch of negative/positive still-photography. Smile

Thats why the digital image-representations of Lu.Orb. ,Apollo and Clemmentine are interesting in that way too! Smile

Because nowhere else you´ll find such an exiting mix between digitally doctored images of the originally analog doctored/enhanced/ photographs! Smile

John Lear wrote:
"Then I would appreciate it if you would return here and post the necessary information. Please post the photos of the camera and how it worked and then the size and length of the negatives and how they were processed."

Yes I have to say that the photographs from Lunar Orbiter I-V (when we talk about the public released) are some of the lesser “enhanced”
images from both L.O. and Apollo and Clemmentine. – But they are still processed. “enhanced”. Just take a look at Aristarchus (because
we know for shure how that area look like – through earth-telescopes!) - And that´s not a bad idea having a topic, called something like:
Lunar Orbiter photographic system enhancements, possible means and intensions!

John lear wrote:
". The lines are not lines. The lines are light shining through where the negatives come together."

But still, the lines (light shining through between two framelets) are not unbroken through the whole image! Some places there´s some objects
covering the line without being broken, indicating that the negative or positive is not being splitted in that point. (or it has been (enhanced)
painted after the connection of the framelets and then digitally photographed!) – Remember one HR 35mm -raster or -framelet reveal just app. 200 x 4100 meter of the moons surface! - Some technically explains is given further down.

John Lear wrote:
". Before you make another uninformed post please take the time to research the Lunar Orbiter spacecraft and inform yourself of how the operaton went so that you don't embarrass yourself with statements about talking about cuttings/slices negatives underneath the whole unbroken negatives. "

The reason for the statement about a blank transparant with lines drawn, and then a whole moon-landscape exposed on another negative,
Then placed upon the first blank Transparant! – When exposed, as a double exposure, it would come out like the picture we are discussing.
Only where no object were shown on the top-negative, ( no object = blank negative) the lines were able to be visualised through the final exposure.
But there´s another possibillity, that´s the picture is doctored! – And like you said:
J.L. wrote:
“Now, about someone giving me a photo from another mission that is unlikely. If that were true then they would have had to take of the photo from another mission and draw all of those lines to make it look like Lunar Orbiter. They would have had to place it on a 16x20 format and concoct a very strange set of circumstances. All of this just to show me, what appears to be a refinery on the moon.
No, this is nonense.”

You´re saying “they would have had to place it on a 16 x 20in. Format.”. - That tells me that it was Boeing who made the picture, because Boeing was the only compagny producing that format. – “The Boing Compagny hand-reassembled it by using 2-generation 35mm paperframelets each measuring about 19,9mm x 428,6mm into a mosaic measuring 16 x 20in. Third generation negative transparencies were then generated from that mosaic on 16 x 20 in. Sheet film.
These photographs have been photographically enhanced but not retouched. The purpose of enhancements was to minimize the joints between adjacent framelets and to reduce the systematic variations in light intensity caused by GRE.” 16x20in = 406,4mm X 508mm so a kind of resizing have been made along the line! Smile

The Boeing Compagny (Or NASA/LRC) is very busy in telling that they are not doing anything to manipulate the photographs!!! Here´s another sentence..:
“The Boeing Compagny and the Langley Research Center (LRC) photographically enhanced the Lunar Orbiter photographs to reduce the variations in light intensity inherent in the system and to minimize the conspicuous lines between framelets. No attempt has been made to remove bubbles or streaks on the film resulting from automatic processing aboard the spacecraft.” (some of them might hide some interesting thingsJ) “The Boeing enchancements are available for selected Lunar Orbiter 1 photographs only.”

Then..

On your very exiting and educating, The Living Moon:
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43an...Moon_Images_Info.html#PhotoSource Under:“Note on How the Photos Are Created”.
I stumbled over some words: (and began to have an idea about why we saw different on the picture discussed) “The total area covered by C#1 to C#2 is ONE photo of the area.” - Yes it´s one photo (before downlink)! - But after down-link! And because it is a High resolution, It is actually composed by 84 different framelets, each framelet is an optically scan measuring 2,667mm x 57,15 mm, on the spacecraft film. Film-density readout was accomplished by a high-intensity light beam focused to a 6.5-micron-diameter spot on the spacecraft film. The spot scanner swept 2.67 mm in the long dimension of the spacecraft film. This process was repeated 286 times for each millimeter of film scanned. The raster was composed of 2.67 (2.667)mm x 65(57.15)mm = (18.590) scan lines along the film. The video signal received at the ground station was recorded on magnetic tape and also fed to Ground Recontruction Equipment (GRE), which reproduced the portion of the image contained in one raster and magnified it approximately with a scale of 7.475 times on a 35-mm film positive framelet. That means one HR raster 35mm positive (framelet) measured: about 19,939mm x 428.625mm. And that was equal to an area measuring: approximate. 200meter x 4100meter(+data)
So for one HR-image taken from the spacecraft, you have to use 83 (+3overlay) 35mm film-framelets after the reassembly ground station. Smile

A little further down in the chapter: “Note on how the photos are created.” you write: “The lines you see are the bars created by each scan of the original image and NOT a result of piecing together negatives. The strip shown here is three photos pasted together, but the area we are studying is one image before scanning.” It´s correct it´s one image before scanning! But after scanning(After Ground Reconstruction Equipment.(GRE)) it has been divided up to 83 images! Each image called a framelet, measuring app.19,939mm x 428,625 mm Created on Kodak SO-349 35mm-film. (This framelet was actually showing 200meter x 4.100meter moon-area.)(as explained above.)
So the lines we see are actually also the visuable signs of different films or paperlets (positive or negative) Hand/automatic-reassemblet, (glued,sliced,spliced,fixed) together. In order to produce one whole picture!. Smile

And in order to “connect the circle” thats why it is very reasonable to questioning the photograph discussed in this topic. Here with redhighlighted overlays:

The “connection” between framelets are covered by highlighted (red) features.

And in green circle is a possible evidence “automatic enhancement” (retouch).

In a way it has been a very amusing and educating process, actually reading about the technically reasons for why so many different sizes of negatives and positive framelets
On paper and film have been manufactured. In reality one original-source size could have been enough, and then using that for copying and re-sizing. But when taking the art of altering and “doctoring” in order to hide some evidence for something into conciderations!
That was probably one of the reasons. – We must really hope the original information stored on magnetic tapes, still exists and not have/will dissapearre(d) like the Apollo 11 Original analog telemetri-data film! Wink

- One day we must hope we can get to see the original unaltered framelets made by recalibrating and contrast-refining the magnetic tape stored informations from Lunar Orbiter Missions. Smile

- And then in the meantime try to figure out (info./misinfo.) what is right and what is wrong in the pictures they are giving us to study! Smile

johnlear

Vril1

Hello again. Smile

Jah You are probably right, but if enough people will keep looking and finding ”holes” in NASA/JPLs reasons for giving such bad quality digital-copys to study.
And share and release the information.
And enough people will keep trying to disclose/expose “new” funny ideas from their foto-department, like the new Apollo-web-site with “new” and “better” quality images.(even for scientific studys they say!! Laughing

) And Then on the new web-site after downloading a 1,3GB TIFF original scan! (35min.!!) And You find out that it is just a blown up old scan! –
And the time for the new website to be fully operational falls together with the possibility for public ordering of Kaguya web-site photos.- App. 2 years from now. Don´t think it´s a coincident!
Well! - You are probably right!!
Smile

chaiyah

I don't have any equipment or software that can create any clarity or improvement in these old Moon photos.

:shrug:

Em

johnlear

chaiyah

Issues, eh?

What I do is library objections to lies and fraud.

What I also do is restore photos to natural color.

Those are my behaviors: ethical and careful.

Is that not enough to be treated with simple respect and be allowed to make my own judgments?

In most places, No. I get trashed everywhere.

Em

johnlear

chaiyah

Seven thousand hits a day ain't nothin'.

Somebody has to take out the garbage.

Here, some nice music. Relax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjgTD66BsCM

: ) Em

Lux

johnlear

Here is a Lunar Orbiter photo of a city on the moon:

Please do not ask me where the city is. If you don't see then you are not supposed to see it.

Actually the photo is spectacular in its 62 mb version but this is the best I can do here.

chaiyah

This photo is a composite of 7 or 8 pieces taken at an oblique angle.

There's NO WAY to see anything, I don't care, what you do to it.

Not only that, but the resolution is lousy, 72 ppi.

My grandmother's Kodak box camera could have done better than that.

There is absolutely no FUNCTIONAL intention on the part of NASA to show us what is real and true. That is my considered judgment after re-processing about three hundred of their photos.

They're in the business of fooling everybody so that their REAL and ACTUAL intentions cannot be inferred from the data they display; and there is a huge discontinuity between their data and their published statements.

Well, you can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time; but you can't fool all the people all the time. MARS IS ALREADY INHABITED and the moon is populated also.

http://www.abidemiracles.com/images/nasamars/columbiapan2MEC.jpg

Emily

johnlear

chaiyah

Okay. Luner Orbiter. The yellow box is a pain in the tush trying to figure out the coloration; but here goes. Dunno if this'll work. I see streets, trees and what could be roofs and a parallel grid. Lousy resolution, though; I don't care if it IS a 75 mb file. Here's what I get, colored.

Can you send me a copy of this [boxed] segment of the original, John, and I'll try again, to get a better focus. ~*~ Emily

johnlear

Send your email to johnlear@cox.net and I will send you a 100mb version of the city just to stop you from whining.

chaiyah

Wow John! I'm inFAMOUS for my whining! A true discontent.

I believe we have reason to be scared, and it's not being discussed.

Send your chunk to chaiyah@gmail.com and/or emicra8@aol.com

One address or the other ought to be able to handle it.

This'll be fun. Thanks!

Em

chaiyah

It's a 76 mb tif file downloading now.

I'm going to have to do a couple of conversions to be able to color it : first to .png and then to .jpg. This will reduce its size somewhat.

I'm excited about the possibility of really improving the articulation of this data. As soon as I make sense of it, John, I'll send it back to you.

Or, I can put it up here in pieces, whatever you want.

Em

johnlear

Put whatever you have or find directly up here. Thanks.

chaiyah

John, now please explain to me why there are people (BODIES!) showing up in this picture, and what you had marked as buildings is actually just a line of people walking toward us.

How can this be? I'm amazed. I was not expecting this. This takes "Where's Waldo?" to a whole new level.

John, are you playing a joke on me? Em

chaiyah

John, you're not talking to me. Come on.

Here's what I had to do to make this go this far.

1. Save the tif file as a png file.
2. Bring up the png file, half-size, and cut out the part we're interested in.
3. Slowly reduce the contrast, so that relative contrast was regained.
4. Added color.
5. Captured highlights and shadows.
6. Began working from top to bottom, to identify object and forms.
7. Coloration creates a sense of distance; and it was at the point, checking the lighting from top to bottom, I realized that what you had marked as structures was just a line of people, walking. That was a shock. So I began following the line of people down the page; and the further I went, the closer and larger the people showed up.

The three in lab coats on the far-right bottom were a total surprise.

So, what do you think? What's going on here?

Emily

johnlear

chaiyah

Thanks John. There's absolutely NO respect being spoken here.

I'm so glad you appreciate my work enough to say Thank you.

I have recolored literally dozens of Mars and Moon photos and I'm becoming known for my opposition to NASA's obfuscations. My photos are beautiful, and that reflects on creativity, not pathology. No, I'm not crazy; I'm certifiably sane.

This is your forum. I guess you can be rude if you want to be.

Emily

MOTOVTRE

IronDogg

Hehehe...

Well Chaiyah, no offense intended as I know you already said before that you don't care, but the first question you should always ask yourself when analyzing any photo, is "What's the scale?". If you consider what the scale of the photo is, it will give you a much better perspective of what you are looking at.

chaiyah

There is no way to tell scale when the perspective is very "deep."

There's an up-close scale, an intermediate scale and a far-off scale.

How would you suggest these get measured?

Em

Farside photo

Lunar image

Lunar Orbiter photo - Or??

Re: Lunar Orbiter photo - Or??