Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.

No Responses to “”

  1. FX Models
    November 15th, 2009 at 1:58 am



    Hi John,
    Thanks for sending that anomaly image off to me. I looked at it quickly and in particular noted that it was a zoomed and cropped image, rather highly zoomed it seemed. Due to perhaps the method used to save/display this image apparently, I can identify quite a number of artifacts from what looks like image compression. Actually right to the upper right of the face is another light/dark pattern that nearly exactly reproduces the “face” just with far less apparent relief. 
    One of the things that Lunar Anomalists need to start doing in my view is to deconstruct the images. In other words, determine the scale of the features from analysis of known features or the given scale from the original image. Some data required would be for instance the meters per pixel scale, which can provide what we call a Plate Scale for further anomaly size determinations. Additionally it is important, actually CRITICAL, to know the look angle to the anomaly. Are we looking straight down at it or at an oblique angle. If at an angle, what IS the angle?  Further, Anomalists can determine the height of the features through shadow analysis knowing the above prerequisite items. If you need to know how to do that I can teach you as I have done this a number of times in my past professional Astronomy career. Anomalies such as faces and the like are typically (like the face on Mars in Cydonia) chance light and shadow interplay. Repeat views at different points in the Lunar librations cycle will show different shadows on the same features.  These data need to be sought for corroborating evidence because unless the one image of evidence is absolutely incontrovertible, then additional images need be acquired/sought etc.  
    In this particular case, I see the anomaly but in my view it is a chance light/dark alignment that appears to look like, but isn’t, a face. Just my thoughts. If you give me the Lunar lat/long I will research it too and attempt to find other images to corroborate. 
    Thanks,
    Marc
    FX Models
    111 Seymour road 
    Terryville, CT
    On Nov 15, 2009, at 0:58, John Bennie <johnbennie@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

  2. John Bennie
    November 15th, 2009 at 9:47 am



    Hi Marc,
     
    Yes, the image is highly zoomed and cropped. Zoom allows for a more detailed examination of the lunar surface.
     
    Why should ‘image compression’ reliably produce apparent ‘faces’ of all things possible, time after time? 
     

    — On Sun, 11/15/09, FX Models <info@fxmodels.com> wrote:

    From: FX Models <info@fxmodels.com>
    Subject: Re: LUNAR ANOMALY
    To: “John Bennie” <johnbennie@sbcglobal.net>
    Cc: “J. P. Skipper” <ski_42@windstream.net>, “jskipper@marsanomalyresearch.com” <jskipper@marsanomalyresearch.com>, “mbara2@enterprisemission.com” <mbara2@enterprisemission.com>, “enterprisemission2001@yahoo.com” <enterprisemission2001@yahoo.com>, “newsflash@ufohq.info” <newsflash@ufohq.info>, “hq@mufon.com” <hq@mufon.com>, “richards.cathy@ymail.com” <richards.cathy@ymail.com>, “JOHNBENNIE@SBCGLOBAL.NET” <JOHNBENNIE@sbcglobal.net>
    Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 1:58 AM

    Hi John,
    Thanks for sending that anomaly image off to me. I looked at it quickly and in particular noted that it was a zoomed and cropped image, rather highly zoomed it seemed. Due to perhaps the method used to save/display this image apparently, I can identify quite a number of artifacts from what looks like image compression. Actually right to the upper right of the face is another light/dark pattern that nearly exactly reproduces the “face” just with far less apparent relief. 
    One of the things that Lunar Anomalists need to start doing in my view is to deconstruct the images. In other words, determine the scale of the features from analysis of known features or the given scale from the original image. Some data required would be for instance the meters per pixel scale, which can provide what we call a Plate Scale for further anomaly size determinations. Additionally it is important, actually CRITICAL, to know the look angle to the anomaly. Are we looking straight down at it or at an oblique angle. If at an angle, what IS the angle?  Further, Anomalists can determine the height of the features through shadow analysis knowing the above prerequisite items. If you need to know how to do that I can teach you as I have done this a number of times in my past professional Astronomy career. Anomalies such as faces and the like are typically (like the face on Mars in Cydonia) chance light and shadow interplay. Repeat views at different points in the Lunar librations cycle will show different shadows on the same features.  These data need to be sought for corroborating evidence because unless the one image of evidence is absolutely incontrovertible, then additional images need be acquired/sought etc.  
    In this particular case, I see the anomaly but in my view it is a chance light/dark alignment that appears to look like, but isn’t, a face. Just my thoughts. If you give me the Lunar lat/long I will research it too and attempt to find other images to corroborate. 
    Thanks,
    Marc
    FX Models
    111 Seymour road 
    Terryville, CT
    On Nov 15, 2009, at 0:58, John Bennie <johnbennie@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

  3. roberto
    February 11th, 2010 at 8:04 am



    HOLA AMIGOS : Deseo compartir con ustedes ,esta foto tomada de un OVNI, durante mis vacaciones en Villa Giardino (CÓRDOBA ,ARGENTINA) el 11 de Enero del 2006 a las 11:21 AM ,con una cámara digital Canon A-95 (5 mpixel) en modo automático. . Muchas gracias.
    VIDEO:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdVqq8V8a68
    FOTO:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/11457980@N08/4145509686/

    INFORME GABIE :
    http://grupogabie.blogspot.com/2009/12/ovni-fortuito-en-villa-giardino-cordoba.html

  4. mrvenom
    March 10th, 2010 at 11:43 am



    I am not going to be original this time, so all I am going to say that your blog rocks, sad that I don’t have suck a writing skills

  5. silversrt
    March 13th, 2010 at 5:09 am



    I am not going to be original this time, so all I am going to say that your blog rocks, sad that I don’t have suck a writing skills

  6. John623
    March 23rd, 2010 at 7:00 am



    Very nice site! is it yours too

  7. John623
    March 23rd, 2010 at 7:00 am



    Very nice site! [url=http://opxaiey.com/oyyraty/2.html]is it yours too[/url]

  8. Bonus
    March 26th, 2010 at 7:09 am



    Hello world :) Nice blog.

  9. POKER
    March 26th, 2010 at 8:21 am



    You are right, very nice

  10. Large Plastic Storage Boxes
    March 26th, 2010 at 5:12 pm



    I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work Look forward to reading more from you in the future.

  11. Nicksasa
    March 31st, 2010 at 6:48 pm



    This is my first visit here, but I will be back soon, because I really like the way you are writing, it is so simple and honest

  12. luana
    April 15th, 2010 at 3:53 am



    http://blog.lochnessmonster.co.uk/blog/_archives/2010/3/29/4492511.html

    Main Page
    Previous: Cryptozoology branded as “fairies at the end of the garden”
    calamity
    Next: Highland councillors breathe sigh of relief and keep monster
    benefits

    Artwork or hoax? The latest Loch Ness Monster debate continues
    by Mikko on Mon 29 Mar 2010 16:05 BST | Permanent Link | Cosmos
    The Italians punting a piece of art allegedly created by the Dutch artist
    Maurits Cornelis Escher are insistent that it is “original” until experts take
    a look and say otherwise; indeed they have been bombarding this site and others
    with endless emails on the subject. But it seems this one is now a stalemate as
    the company with licensing rights to all Escher’s works are not interested in
    the matter and say the art in question is not genuine.

    The charcoal drawing is said to be a “black man without a face” shown with
    Nessie, the Loch Ness Monster. If the truth is out there, then, in this case at
    least we may never know…

    Crytozoologists have kept very quiet and experts were unavailable for
    comment.
    Keywords: drawing, sketch, Whisky, unknown, ufo, travel, tourism, tartan,
    sighting, Scottish, Scotland, politics, picture, photo, paranormal, painting,
    Nessy, Nessie, Ness, monster, lunch, Lock, Loch, lake, islands, Highlands,
    expert, evidence, dispute, cryptozoology, cryptozoologist, cryptid, cash,
    artwork, artist, art, alien
    Posted to: Main Page

    Post a comment
    No comments found.

  13. jediguy
    April 15th, 2010 at 4:49 pm



    Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now. Keep it up!
    And according to this article, I totally agree with your opinion, but only this time! :)