Richard C Hoagland's Chinese Lunar Images

[jagman]

Richard was a guest on C2C last night and he posted some very
interesting images.

This dramatic comparison is between a Chang'e-3 lunar image (left), officially posted on the Chinese Army government website, and an "equalized" version of the same Chinese lunar image (right). The "glittering, vertical glass curtains" blatantly visible in the "equalized-image version," are stunning proof now of the reality behind the Enterprise Mission's decades-old "ancient lunar dome" hypothesis. Click on image to enlarge. Link to Chinese website image.




"Equalized version" of another official Chang'e-3 lunar surface image, revealing another set of the Moon's startling "glittering glass towers" standing only a few miles northeast of the the Chang'e-3 landing site. Careful examination of the image will reveal an amazingly coherent geometry to these ancient, heavily meteor-eroded glass structures ... including, the surface placement of the still-glowing "colored blue and red panels" appearing at these structures' base and to the extreme right -- apparently energized colored panels "embedded in the ancient glass." Click on image to enlarge. Link to additional images; view paper at Enterprise Mission

[jagman]

Here is the interview. 38:14 mark

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zXI7W-6Qh0M

[Cidersomerset]

Thanks Jagman I've been waiting for Hoaglands view on the China jaunt to the
Moon...LOL...Its all gone a bit quite on the Jade Rabbit front, it was speculated
the rover may have failed.

I'l put this on my list to listen to...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NuCZDanw3aE

BBC News Can China's Jade Rabbit bounce back

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mqBom9MsYrk

[jagman]

George cracked a good joke at Richard last night...It was so damn funny.
Richard was carrying on Like normal lol He was making some kind of analogy
Saying "It would be like me running around in times square naked". At that
moment George cuts in and says "Yeah no one wants to hear about that
Richard!" lol George laughed but I dont think Richard thought it was funny.

[Atlas]

This 1st 360 Degree Color Panorama from China’s Chang’e-3 Lunar Lander shows the view all around the landing site after the ‘Yutu’ lunar rover left impressive tracks behind when it initially rolled all six wheels onto the pockmarked and gray lunar terrain on Dec. 15, 2013. Mosaic Credit: CNSA/Chinanews/Ken Kremer/Marco Di Lorenzo – kenkremer.com


(click to enlarge)

This content is NOT on the Avalon server. Source of content is: http://www.360cities.net/embed_iframe/lunar-panorama-change-3-lander

This content is NOT on the Avalon server. Source of content is: http://www.360cities.net/embed_iframe/lunar-panorama-change-3-lander

Click the PLAY button above to see a 360 view by Andrew Bodrov (then click 'Full screen' and explore the panorama using your keyboard).

[mosquito]

Sorry, but Hoagland really is a prize dick if he thinks that fiddling with the brightness on a pixel-manipulation program will reveal hidden truths.

Think I'm being unkind ? Try this - open an image of yourself with whatever program you have, turn up the brightness and hey presto ! There's an invisible glass dome around your head ! Along with myriad UFOs/fairies/whatever else you want to call them.

[Carmody]

I would myself consider that it is the pixellation background pattern from the CCD device itself, that is being picked up, but I would be a bit more kind in expressing my opinion on that. I would say that it may be so...but Richard may also have some explanation of this issue, or explanation of this consideration. A consideration which is very basic with respect to digital images. Specifically images that have high contrast and are dealing with very deep blacks.

eg, this is the noise floor pixellation pattern of a modern Canon CCD based camera.



When you add in the light source direction, the source of reflection and then add in the residual problems of the optics when impacted by this side shot, or side light source, you get to something with a fractional db of light differential, from the left to the right and from the bottom to the top.

Thus, a change where the bottom right and right side are the brightest. And the 'noise floor' of the image is more perfected, on the top left, where the light noise is the lowest.

This is just an off the cuff analysis, but it is a quite edjumacated one.

[Cidersomerset]

I enjoy Richards and Georges exchanges, and this is a good episode. I'm not sure
about the conclusions he is definitely passionate and he certainly gave 'Marvin the
Martian' short thrift...LOL.. His interpretations of all sorts of things is interesting
and he sees code everywhere, and I recognise a lot of it from all sorts of sources,
whether it is true or not again is open to interpretation......

I looked at his link and its full of bits and bobs...

The "Moon Goddess" Chang'e ... Her Pet "Jade Rabbit"...
and a Flock of "Lunar Crows" ....





[ Mod-edit: the above image was taking 20 minutes to load. It was a large image coming from a slow server. I replaced it with a smaller version of the same image coming from a fast server. If you want to see the original image, it can be found at the following URL. -- Paul. ]

http://www.enterprisemission.com/chi...nhancement.jpg

http://www.enterprisemission.com/chi...%20Landing.htm

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Carmody (here)
eg, this is the noise floor pixellation pattern of a modern Canon CCD based camera.

When I first viewed this image in my web browser, on a non-color-corrected monitor with plenty of room light reflecting off it ... it was a simple, large, uniformly black, rectangle (at least to my ancient eyes.)

I downloaded the image and in the image processing tool "gimp" I did a single transformation, clicking on the "Colors ==> Auto ==> Equalize" option, in order to amplify to a maximum extent any color variations in the image (a false to the maximum transform of the color balance, accentuating any subtle patterns in the sea of blackness).

Here's what I then saw:

[Cidersomerset]

Is that the rainbow image Richard was referring to Paul..?

===================================================

Richard was keen to debunk Jay Weidners and others theories about Stanley
Kubrik filming the moon landings.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still think there is something to it and its possible both may have happened,
Kubrick filmed in the studio in case the live link visuals failed. There was to much
invested not to have it on our TV sets. Also it gave them the option of
faking the landings if things went wrong. I tend to think both happened and
the moon pictures and film are a mixture of real and staged.

[jagman]

Carmody could you create an image similar to the lunar images Hoagland posted?

[jagman]

Posted by mariposafe (here)
Sorry, but Hoagland really is a prize dick if he thinks that fiddling with the brightness on a pixel-manipulation program will reveal hidden truths.

Think I'm being unkind ? Try this - open an image of yourself with whatever program you have, turn up the brightness and hey presto ! There's an invisible glass dome around your head ! Along with myriad UFOs/fairies/whatever else you want to call them.

Could you make a fake for a comparison mariposafe?

[Mike Gorman]

Posted by jagman (here)
George cracked a good joke at Richard last night...It was so damn funny.
Richard was carrying on Like normal lol He was making some kind of analogy
Saying "It would be like me running around in times square naked". At that
moment George cuts in and says "Yeah no one wants to hear about that
Richard!" lol George laughed but I dont think Richard thought it was funny.

Well Richard does tend to take himself very seriously-I always think this is what separates authentic thinkers from the more Ego centered
'Center of attention seeker' types-being able to keep things in perspective definitely indicates a well rounded person. Humor is a litmus for intelligence.
I am always wary of gaining too much information from photographs-light, effects and artifacts with digital photography seem to really diminish credibility-what you see aint' always what you get.

[jagman]

Posted by Cidersomerset (here)
I enjoy Richards and Georges exchanges, and this is a good episode. I'm not sure
about the conclusions he is definitely passionate and he certainly gave 'Marvin the
Martian' short thrift...LOL.. His interpretations of all sorts of things is interesting
and he sees code everywhere, and I recognise a lot of it from all sorts of sources,
whether it is true or not again is open to interpretation......

I looked at his link and its full of bits and bobs...

The "Moon Goddess" Chang'e ... Her Pet "Jade Rabbit"...
and a Flock of "Lunar Crows" ....






[ Mod-edit: the above image was taking 20 minutes to load. It was a large image coming from a slow server. I replaced it with a smaller version of the same image coming from a fast server. If you want to see the original image, it can be found at the following URL. -- Paul. ]

http://www.enterprisemission.com/chi...nhancement.jpg

http://www.enterprisemission.com/chi...%20Landing.htm

Yeah, I heard Marvin the Martian is a bad dude lol On a serious note Ive
dealt with stalkers before and it's no fun.

[jagman]

Posted by GalaxyHorse (here)

Posted by jagman (here)
George cracked a good joke at Richard last night...It was so damn funny.
Richard was carrying on Like normal lol He was making some kind of analogy
Saying "It would be like me running around in times square naked". At that
moment George cuts in and says "Yeah no one wants to hear about that
Richard!" lol George laughed but I dont think Richard thought it was funny.

Well Richard does tend to take himself very seriously-I always think this is what separates authentic thinkers from the more Ego centered
'Center of attention seeker' types-being able to keep things in perspective definitely indicates a well rounded person. Humor is a litmus for intelligence.

I am always wary of gaining too much information from photographs-light, effects and artifacts with digital photography seem to really diminish credibility-what you see aint' always what you get.

I think you pretty much nailed my sentiments. To many photos can be faked
or doctored with todays tech.

[jagman]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Carmody (here)
eg, this is the noise floor pixellation pattern of a modern Canon CCD based camera.

When I first viewed this image in my web browser, on a non-color-corrected monitor with plenty of room light reflecting off it ... it was a simple, large, uniformly black, rectangle (at least to my ancient eyes.)

I downloaded the image and in the image processing tool "gimp" I did a single transformation, clicking on the "Colors ==> Auto ==> Equalize" option, in order to amplify to a maximum extent any color variations in the image (a false to the maximum transform of the color balance, accentuating any subtle patterns in the sea of blackness).

Here's what I then saw:

Paul could you explain in lamen terms the image I'm looking at?

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Cidersomerset (here)
Is that the rainbow image Richard was referring to Paul..?

The image I posted is a tranformation of the "black rectangle" image that Carmody posted.

I have no idea what it has to do with what Richard Hoagland was referring to .

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by jagman (here)
Paul could you explain in lamen terms the image I'm looking at?

It shows, in false color, the variations in color and brightness that were (much) less obvious in the black rectangle that Carmody posted in Plost #7, above.

[Airwooz]

Posted by mariposafe (here)
Sorry, but Hoagland really is a prize dick if he thinks that fiddling with the brightness on a pixel-manipulation program will reveal hidden truths.

Think I'm being unkind ? Try this - open an image of yourself with whatever program you have, turn up the brightness and hey presto ! There's an invisible glass dome around your head ! Along with myriad UFOs/fairies/whatever else you want to call them.

Ha ! After finished his Dark mission and some interviews I got the same impression that he is a very sophisticated disinfo agent. But he did reveal some truths
such as "The lie is different at every level ".

[mosquito]

Here's a photo of me, taken on a Pentax camera in 1998 in Peru, using I-know-not-what film. I then photographed it using a Samsung Wave phone/camera. The brightness and contrast are increased (using Gimp) to 100%. (N.B. this is directly analogous to what Hoagland did with the original Apollo photos - he scanned the prints or negatives, I'm not sure which, in order to get a digital image, then performed his wizardry and declared there to be a glass dome (through which the lunar module landed and took off 6 times without managing to break it) Photoshop/Gimp whatever ARE NOT forensic analysis tools - they are programs which, basically, manipulate 1s and 0s).


I'm relieved to see there was no dome behind me, but using Hoagland's "logic", you can still see plenty of "stuff".

The explanation is really quite simple - Paul hit the nail on the head. The noise from the CCD is one part of it, to which you can add whatever detritus could be found on the camera lens (in my case), or the scanner, in Hoagland's case.