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: