 |
|
 |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Vril1
Joined: 11 May 2008
Posts: 52
Location: Denmark
|
 Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi again John. 
Thought it was a peace of laundry! 
But still - can you explain the lines covered.! 
Think it shows some tampering, but still there´s lots of very exiting things going on in the picture.
_________________
Helena Petrova Blavatsky said: Theres just one God and that is the Truth! |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
johnlear
Joined: 31 Dec 2006
Posts: 202
Location: Las Vegas, NV
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vril1 wrote: | Hi again John.
Thought it was a peace of laundry!
But still - can you explain the lines covered.!
Think it shows some tampering, but still there´s lots of very exiting things going on in the picture. |
The lines don't cover anything. The lines are where the negatives come together. The 'lines' are where the light is shining through where the negative comes together. There are no lines. Nobody drew any lines. The lines don't cover up anything. The lines don't go over anything. The lines don't go under anything. The lines don't go through anything. The lines are not lines. The lines are light shining through where the negatives come together. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Vril1
Joined: 11 May 2008
Posts: 52
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject: Lunar Orbiter photo - Or?? |
|
|
Hello John. And everybody please have patient with me!
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!  
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!
_________________
Helena Petrova Blavatsky said: Theres just one God and that is the Truth! |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
johnlear
Joined: 31 Dec 2006
Posts: 202
Location: Las Vegas, NV
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 2:36 pm Post subject: Re: Lunar Orbiter photo - Or?? |
|
|
| Vril1 wrote: | Hello John. And everybody please have patient with me!
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!
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! |
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. 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.
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.
Like I say I would spoon feed you myself but I have much better things to do.
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.
Thanks for the post vril1 and I hope you have time to research thoroughly your ideas before presenting them, half baked, to us here at this forum. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Vril1
Joined: 11 May 2008
Posts: 52
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi again John.
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.
Thats why the digital image-representations of Lu.Orb. ,Apollo and Clemmentine are interesting in that way too!
Because nowhere else you´ll find such an exiting mix between digitally doctored images of the originally analog doctored/enhanced/ photographs!
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!
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. 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!.
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! - 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. - 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!
_________________
Helena Petrova Blavatsky said: Theres just one God and that is the Truth! |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
johnlear
Joined: 31 Dec 2006
Posts: 202
Location: Las Vegas, NV
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vril1 wrote: |
- 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. |
Whatever your are smoking Vril1 I want some!
| Quote: | | - 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! |
You don't have to try very hard to figure out info/misinfo:
If a spider is filling up a 75 miles diameter lunar crater then that is a Navy Research Laboratory Clementine fabricated photo.
However if you see a huge refinery on the far side with tall buildings on either side then someone has got a hold of an original Lunar Orbiter photo.
But whatever the case nobody is goiving you anything to study. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Vril1
Joined: 11 May 2008
Posts: 52
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello again.
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!!  ) 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!!
_________________
Helena Petrova Blavatsky said: Theres just one God and that is the Truth! |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
chaiyah
Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 182
Location: cyberspace
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't have any equipment or software that can create any clarity or improvement in these old Moon photos.
:shrug:
Em
_________________
( >#( >7( >~Chai |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
johnlear
Joined: 31 Dec 2006
Posts: 202
Location: Las Vegas, NV
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chaiyah wrote: | I don't have any equipment or software that can create any clarity or improvement in these old Moon photos.
:shrug:
Em |
This issue has come up many times over the past few years and the issue is, "Why can some peole easily see the structures and some not."
Zorgon and I have studied this issue and it does not seem to have anything to do with intelligence.
But, there is some reason that the "Universal Power Dude" has prevented some people from easily seeing these structures.
The structures that are clearest seem to get a "WOW" from some people and, "huh?" from others.
It is not going to be equipment or software that will help you see these images. Perhaps another few lifetimes will help. I am not an expert chaiyah, nor do I pretend to be, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see you have many issues to work out before you are ready to see the truth. Or at least the truth as others see it. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
chaiyah
Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 182
Location: cyberspace
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
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
_________________
( >#( >7( >~Chai |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
