View Full Version : Closer to home : our Moon

2009-Mar-23, 06:26 PM
A three-dimensional image, from the 2006 widely-published image by S Hanson.

Moon image (http://www.abidemiracles.com/images/earth/moon/06Moonannotatedb600.jpg)

Edited by Swift to replace image with link.
joshai58 - Please read the rules (http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/32864-rules-posting-board.html#post564845)about hotlinking and copyright

2009-Mar-24, 07:48 AM
Sorry to be a dummy, but how is this a 3D image?

peter eldergill
2009-Mar-24, 02:38 PM
Isnt this section supposed to be for people who actually took photos and want to share them with other enthusiasts?


2009-Mar-24, 04:09 PM
I took Hanson's raw photo, rendered it in false color and brought up details that were invisible the way light was playing on the object.

Is there no curiosity in this place? Does certainty rule everything?


2009-Mar-24, 04:15 PM
I believe I can see sick and elderly stranded people in that image. I wonder why someone doesn't rescue them?

2009-Mar-24, 04:16 PM
I would like to start by pointing out that the image is not 3D.

2009-Mar-24, 04:24 PM
It's not TECHNICALLY 3D. It is virtually 3D because you can see the structural ramparts and ribs of which the Moon was constructed INSIDE, all of which was present in the original pixels, but photo processing glossed over it all.


2009-Mar-24, 04:25 PM
It also is not virtually 3D either. Do you know what 3D requires?

2009-Mar-24, 07:21 PM
From this quote by Joshai58 in another thread, it looks like this thread may morph into something else soon.

Our moon does not exist only in a grey-scale. There is vegetation there, believe it or not.

2009-Mar-24, 07:46 PM
From this quote by Joshai58 in another thread, it looks like this thread may morph into something else soon.
I'm thinking that based on statements in this thread alone.

2009-Mar-24, 07:52 PM
There are issues here about, What is a valid, verifiable and true photo VERSUS what is a photoshopped, altered, forged photo.

At the moment, this has become an Moderation issue, due to the fact that I am not seeped in the "Scientific" methodology of getting to a "set of pixels" (to work from) from a real image.

I am expected here to know something or everything there is to know about digital photography. I don't. I won't. It doesn't matter to me, what photographic processes are in use, so long as the end product is A SET OF PIXELS that can be rendered in black-and-white.

From ANY, and I use that word advisedly, ANY digital set of pixels, I can render an image of depth, proportion and reasonable scale, if the content has any coherence that I can identify with Life itself. Is there a bug? Is there a bird? Is there a splash? Is there a trail? Is there an artifact?

Every clue leads to somewhere. I guess what I do you could call photographic forensics. But I'm not an astronomer and I cannot answer your questions about digital cameras or how they operate.

Okay? I'm just the Xerox repair guy "fixing" your copies by returning them to the original pixels captured in the camera (which never go away unless deliberately DEFACED). And we call that, photoshopping. And I can tell, and you should be able to tell also.


2009-Mar-24, 08:17 PM
joshai58, as has already been pointed out to you, the astrophotography forum is for amateur astronomers to post photos they themselves have taken. Furthermore, astrophotography is not the appropriate place to air your photoshop conspiracy and non-mainstream astronomy claims.

Furthermore, as your other thread where you make identical claims has been closed until you PM a mod you're ready to answer questions, I've closed this one as well. Do not open another thread with these claims while you have questions pending.

2009-Mar-24, 08:17 PM
You should really read up about pareidolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia). This is the effect where people have a tendency to see things, such as faces, in random patterns. The classic one is looking up at a cloud and seeing a horse or a duck. The Bad Astronomer (one of the owners of this site) writes about it here (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/lenin.html).

I don't care how you have manipulated a photo, but if you are seeing vegetation on the moon, you are imagining things that are not there. I don't need photoshop to tell the moon is a barren, airless wasteland, I can just look at it through a telescope with my own eyes.