[DONTEATUS]

I feel the swelling of my brain when these threads go into Hyper-zin and one looks at normal items in a pic and then decide to open there minds to endless possibilites.Look in the mirror before looking into the Rabbit Hole.

[bee]

karl 12 on Feb 1 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

Also theres some interesting disclosure testimony regarding structures on the moon:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=R6QNzH4x1rY

I was watching this earlier, after seeing your OP.

There's just too much coming out now...regarding all this...for there to be no basis to it.

I'm imagining what it must be like for people carrying these 'secrets' and how much they
would want to SHARE what they know.

I'm very blah, blah, blah...when I want to SHARE stuff....I can understand how much these people
NEED to get it off their chest and just tell it how it is. I think this is a very human trait. That is why
I don't like secrets. If the truth (as we see/feel it) isn't good enough....then what is???

All for one, and one for all.

[KS15]

bmk1245 on Feb 1 2009, 03:47 PM, said:

Oh man, its priceless...

OK.

Let me make it more clear...

The resolution is determined by the optics of the camera...
http://en.wikipedia....ical_resolution

I like this equivalent equation better..(for visible wavelengths).
Theta(min) = (206,265Lamda)/d

d = Diameter of the lens in meters
Lamda = Wavelength in meters.
Theta(min) = The resolution in arc seconds

This arc second resolution can be easily converted to radians.
http://www.icivileng...?category=angle

A camera with a lens is just another telescope...Look for the entry "Angular Resolution".
http://en.wikipedia....tical_telescope

Both the large and small images on the Apollo 17 website have the same resolution.

The 300 pixels per inch is just a measurement on PS CS3....I can enlarge an image either by changing the 300 pixels per inch (600 pixels per inch or 2X). Or by changing length/width of an image (the 300 pixels per inch will remain the same). Of course, I can reduced an image as well.

The so-called high resolution images are noisy...The quality is poor compared to the smaller images...That is why I will be working with the smaller images.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/

This post has been edited by KS15: 01 February 2009 - 11:06 PM

[bee]

I think the patches that were put forward, but not chosen, for Apollo 17 are of interest.

Especially when considering that there may be secret 'stuff' to do with ancient monuments
on the moon. For example the pyramid.

There were more than the two below that were rejected.....but even so....

Stonehenge!!!! What's all that about?







http://genedorr.com/...pollo/Ap17.html

Quote

In an interview conducted for the JSC Oral History Project, McCall, recalls: "Jack Schmitt was the geologist astronaut on that mission, and he thought Stonehenge would be a wonderful image to include."

[KS15]

Hello all.

A calibration chart as posted on the Apollo 17 website….


Processed…..This image validates my processing or enhancements……


When enhancing the original online Apollo 17 images, I will use the same processing steps.

Most…maybe all….of the online Apollo 17 images are over-exposed…

My goal is to improve and correct this over exposure. The colors of the Moons surface will also be revealed.

Who knows…I might just find something of interest…

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/

[RUCKUS]

KS15..Now that is a very acceptable enhancement none of the image detail has been destroyed. If you keep to this method I feel your images would be better received. Sometimes less is more. I heard that somewhere.

Peace Ruckus

[KS15]

RUCKUS on Feb 1 2009, 08:43 PM, said:

KS15..Now that is a very acceptable enhancement none of the image detail has been destroyed. If you keep to this method I feel your images would be better received. Sometimes less is more. I heard that somewhere.

Peace Ruckus

None of my enhancements/processing destroys detail........No matter the level of processing or technique.....Original image detail is not destroyed or altered....I can apply a gradient image to that calibration chart...
Original image detail is not destroyed or altered....I can even convert it to a photo negative......Each is a form of an enhancement....I have many ways to work with original image detail....
All of my enhancements works with original image detail and is NOT destroyed or altered....
I can not say this more clearly...

[RUCKUS]

KS15 on Feb 1 2009, 08:55 PM, said:

None of my enhancements/processing destroys detail........No matter the level of processing or technique.....Original image detail is not destroyed or altered....I can apply a gradient image to that calibration chart...
Original image detail is not destroyed or altered....I can even convert it to a photo negative......Each is a form of an enhancement....I have many ways to work with original image detail....
All of my enhancements works with original image detail and is NOT destroyed or altered....
I can not say this more clearly...

I’m done with that I try to give you a compliment a little pat on the back and you come back with the same old BS replies. So let me put it to you this way turn that chart into a big old blob of colors like you do with all your other enhancements break out the crayons man have a ball but witch one do you think would be a better representation of the original document?

Ruckus Out

[DONTEATUS]

Its really scary.

[Wallydraigle]

I've found startling new proof that NASA is hiding alien civilizations.

First, I took the shot of the calibration chart posted above.



Next, to increase the resolution, I shrunk the dimensions down by 50%



No details are lost by this reduction in size, and the DPI stays the same. Not happy with the increase in resolution, I shrunk it again.



And again.



As you can see, no details are lost by this reduction, and the resolution stays the same, but now it's too small to see, so I increased it to a more manageable size.



That's better. Next, I ran this high-res version of the chart through some pretty color filters.



I know, it's shocking, but it was right there the whole time. I really did very little to it. In case you can't see:



Yes, this proves that the calibration chart is in fact a martian city. You can see the sand next to the corner of the wall, and you can even see the ripples in the sand where the force fields have interfered with the flow and eddies of the terrain.

The entire program must be full of such secrets. Given time I'm sure we can uncover the truth.

[RUCKUS]

That made my day! Bravo

[KS15]

Wallydraigle on Feb 1 2009, 09:25 PM, said:

I've found startling new proof that NASA is hiding alien civilizations.

First, I took the shot of the calibration chart posted above.



Next, to increase the resolution, I shrunk the dimensions down by 50%



No details are lost by this reduction in size, and the DPI stays the same. Not happy with the increase in resolution, I shrunk it again.



And again.



As you can see, no details are lost by this reduction, and the resolution stays the same, but now it's too small to see, so I increased it to a more manageable size.



That's better. Next, I ran this high-res version of the chart through some pretty color filters.



I know, it's shocking, but it was right there the whole time. I really did very little to it. In case you can't see:



Yes, this proves that the calibration chart is in fact a martian city. You can see the sand next to the corner of the wall, and you can even see the ripples in the sand where the force fields have interfered with the flow and eddies of the terrain.

The entire program must be full of such secrets. Given time I'm sure we can uncover the truth.

Thanks for giving examples of how NOT to enhance an image....

This post has been edited by KS15: 02 February 2009 - 03:11 AM

[DONTEATUS]

Was that the famous Eye test for E.T`s?

[RUCKUS]

I took Wallys image and enhanced it a little more with my retroincabulator and found this hidden detail.

OHHHHH SCARY ALIEN WE ARE ALL DOOMED!

[KS15]

A proper image enhancement. I used similar steps on all my images..I work with original image detail.

Any proper image processing/enhancements does not obscure detail.

This simple calibration chart is a good example to show a proper analysis. Image detail is not "destroyed".

Our enhanced base image.

http://rex-heflin-uf...40-chart_A2.jpg

Inverted or a photo-negative is created. Light and dark pixels are reversed...I occasionally have to perform this step.

http://rex-heflin-uf...-chart_A3-1.jpg

Gradient image applied. The bands map out brightness levels. You can not see these brightness levels visually..The gradient reveals a hidden detail..

http://rex-heflin-uf...-chart_A9-1.jpg

A more complicated gradient pattern.

http://rex-heflin-uf...chart_A10-1.jpg

By applying different processing steps, different levels of image detail can be revealed.

This post has been edited by KS15: 02 February 2009 - 03:16 AM