Latest topics» Light Ship Plasma UFOs
by easynow Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:03 am
» Portage County Ohio, Police UFO chase 1966
by easynow Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:07 am
» UFOs over Langenburg, Saskatchewan, Canada 1974
by easynow Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:58 am
» Credible Statements about the UFO/OVNI subject.
by karl 12 Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:55 pm
» Video: 1952 Washington D.C. UFO Sightings
by easynow Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:10 pm
Last edited by Admin on Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:54 am; edited 2 times in total
LunaCognita wrote:The idea that many craters on the lunar surface are polygonal in shape rather than circular (contrary to what one should expect when discussing what are supposed to be "impact craters") - this is something that NASA obviously knew all about. They did not make a big deal of it publicly, chiefly because it contradicts the Dead Moon Dictum and Presumption of Naturality rulebook they were forced to adhere to, and they had ways of obfuscating the true polygonal shape in many of their images in order to suppress the sharp angles and make them appear more circular.
Our Earth's atmosphere is actually a very good natural obfuscator, with the atmospheric turbulence and distortion also serving to suppress the sharp angles of these polygonal craters when viewed through a telescope, making them appear more circular than they really are.
Here is a link to a document in the SAO/NASA ADS archives that was published back in 1966 by Doctor Johannes van Diggelen (Netherlands) that discusses the existence of these these polygonal craters and their apparent alignment criteria.
Linear Network of Lunar Surface Features - 1966
From the document:
LunaCognita wrote:At the 8:56 mark of this video here, I show a clip from a sequence of Apollo 17 DAC footage, as well as a stack enhancement of the scene, and in that particular clip/enhancement you can see another couple "polygon" craters pretty easily, with their sharp angles being quite well defined. Actually, you can see the craters I am talking about that are in the video in the still frame that is in the Youtube link directly below (they are on the far left side).
Here is the stack enhancement I show in that video, with the arrows pointing to the two polygon craters that I am talking about. The larger top arrow is pointing to a pentagon shape, and the lower small arrow is pointing to a crater that appears to maybe have more of a square/rectangular, 4-sided shape.
Incidentally, I also want to point out that the slight blurring you see on the left and right sides of that enhancement is absolutely NOT an artifact of the enhancement process. That blurring that occupies the left 1/3rd and right 1/3rd of the image is an obfuscative technique that NASA applied to the raw footage before archive release. NASA applies this truly pathetic obfuscation to virtually all of their 16mm DAC footage showing the lunar surface. That blurring is in the raw footage, and it's purpose is to ensure that only 1/3rd of the entire field of view (the middle portion) is actually in focus at any given time.
In fact, just to show you I ain't kidding around when I say that this obfuscative technique was applied to a huge portion of the Apollo 16mm DAC footage showing the lunar surface, go to the 7:51 mark of that same video I posted above, and check out the stabilized version of that bright ray crater I show. You can see the blur on the left and right in the contrast-enhanced version as it sweeps back and forth across the crater.
In the enhancement below, I dramatically "over-sharped" the frame and hit it with contrast in order to delineate the blur borders a bit better. You can see that here, actually LESS THAN 1/3rd of the FOV is actually in focus for this scene. Gee, I wonder why they wanted to obfuscate this particular crater?
Continuing on, in that same video above, go to the 1:17 mark, and I show a stabilized "Earthrise" sequence. Watch how the right side border is floating back and forth when that clip starts, and you will see the Earth is blurred initially, but then, as the camera centers and the Earth moves into the middle 1/3rd of the field-of-view and that scene plays out, you see the Earth suddenly sharpens in focus. That is because it is only the middle 1/3rd of the FOV that is actually in tight focus, and the other 2/3rds of the FOV are blurred! See what I mean?
In fact, just keep watching that video after the Earthrise sequence, and notice how when I show the interior footage inside the CSM in the middle part of the video, the whole scene is in tight focus, with no side blurring! Of course, NASA had no reason to side blur obfuscate the interior footage showing inside the CSM, because they had nothing to hide there. As soon as the camera is pointed at the lunar surface however, the blurring games begin! Pathetic, isn't it?
The blurring can sometimes be hard to detect in some of the 16mm lunar footage because much of that footage, in it's raw archive form as NASA shows it, is typically showing a very grey scene with the contrast turned way down, and the blurring is basically buried in the brightness and lack of contrast and is hard to detect unless you are aware to look for it. That doesnt mean it is not effective though! As soon as the contrast gets dialed up, this obfuscative blurring of 2/3rds of the scene shows itself clearly.
These are the kinds of ridiculous measures NASA/DoD goes to in order to help hide the truth from us. The only real excuse to explain this blurring effect is that what you are seeing is deliberately applied obfuscation, designed specifically to aid NASA/DoD in controlling the quality and quantity of evidence we have available to analyze.
LunaCognita wrote:Here is another crater that has a polygon shape to it. You can see that a satellite crater intrudes over the rim at the top of the crater, helping to break up the shape, but there are some pretty firm angles visible here as well.
hey Luna, watcha think about this one ?
source - http://ser.sese.asu.edu/LO/lo3-143-h3a.html
source - http://ser.sese.asu.edu/LO/lo3-143-h3a.html
LunaCognita wrote:Hi Max,
Yes, I did use that clip in one of my videos - a couple of them actually I think. That blurring really is ugly, isn't it? No, there really is not anything that is not obfuscated. I am not exaggerating when I say "they lied about everything". There is no reasonable explanation for this blurring you see other than deliberate obfuscation. It is not a product of the camera/lens system or the raw film development process, nor does it have anything to do with the film transfer to video process either.
Here is another example I just rendered off today actually that also shows the blurring, so I uploaded it to Youtube for ya (using the "unlisted" feature so it is not really public). This is a short bit of DAC footage from the Apollo 12 mission, showing the raw footage and a frame-stack enhancement. In the stack enhancement, you can see the obfuscative blurring on the outside 2/3rds of the FOV clearly. It is especially prevalent on the right side in this example, and that blurring is not a product of the enhancement process - that is the way NASA archives and presents it to us, with the middle section in much firmer focus than the outsides. Keep an eye out for this, because you will see this obfuscation all the time when you watch the Apollo DAC footage showing the Moon from lunar orbit. You don't see it in the interior footage - just when they show the lunar surface.
Here is another example of this blur gradient effect, this one from Apollo 10 DAC footage. Watch as the unidentified object first enters the FOV, and you will see it is blurred. As it quickly proceeds to the center of the FOV, it sharpens into focus, then as it passes out the left side out of frame, it blurs again. This is showing that same blur gradient in action.
And here is another, similar bit of footage - also from Apollo 10 - showing another unidentified object also filmed from lunar orbit. Watch how when the object first appears, it is blurred by the gradient, but as it enters the middle of the FOV, it sharpens focus.
Sorry, I guess this is straying kinda off-topic for this thread, but the thing about Apollo is, it is not a simplistic conspiracy by any stretch of the imagination. The coverup is of extremely complex design, and it was many things all tied together that ensured that the public archive imagery and footage presented the world a carefully controlled and sanitized view of the Moon.
Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum