Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Chang'e-2 Orbiter, Alien Moon Base

views
     
3dassets
post Mar 15 2012, 03:30 PM

Absolutely no nonsense
*******
Senior Member
3,796 posts

Joined: Nov 2008


Bad photo reconstruction, inconsistent film exposure of light deflection according to rage or distance, meaning the dimension of negative film cannot possibly capture the small details. How to tell the difference? Between Light & shadow is not black & white, bright light causes over exposure and create halo effect.

If the story is true, separate image is imposed into it.

This post has been edited by 3dassets: Mar 15 2012, 03:32 PM
3dassets
post Mar 15 2012, 07:03 PM

Absolutely no nonsense
*******
Senior Member
3,796 posts

Joined: Nov 2008


QUOTE(norther @ Mar 15 2012, 04:21 PM)
The resolution of the images obtained from Chang'e-2 is 17 times finer than those taken by its predecessor Chang'e-1.
If there were airports and harbours on the moon, the Chang'e-1 could just identify them while Chang'e-2 could detect the planes or ships in them. The scientists also made some adjustments to the original data to more accurately reflect the topographic and geomorphologic features of the moon.The scientists have produced 746 moon pictures with the resolution of seven meters, and the total volume of data is about 800 GB.

Here i have the 800 GB of picures...anyone up for the challenge?

SoSMoonView

and.... For consideration:
Lunar Orbiter III, Launched 1967, Photo Gallery Frame 3085

SoSLunarOrbiterIII
*
The above video show photo manipulation defect just like some ufo hoax images, though some are quite convincing, where are the pictures taken by Chang'e-2 that indicate alien space ship and building?

This post has been edited by 3dassets: Mar 15 2012, 07:04 PM
3dassets
post Mar 15 2012, 08:32 PM

Absolutely no nonsense
*******
Senior Member
3,796 posts

Joined: Nov 2008


QUOTE(norther @ Mar 15 2012, 08:16 PM)
user posted image
1:04

IF... this is real... which I highly doubt... I am pretty sure it is manmade
... just my two...
*
That is the problem, the geometrical shaped structure does not match the exposure density mass. It look like an enlarged image and added details and finer than the rest of the terrain, also a bit odd in perspective, isn't this picture from 1970s, where are the recent pictures?

This post has been edited by 3dassets: Mar 15 2012, 08:35 PM

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0164sec    0.26    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 29th November 2025 - 12:47 PM