Moon Rising

J’en suis Baba!

that was an amazing time spent watching this!!! thank you

I’ll try writing this again since my connection dropped after finishing the doc last night.

There is so much bad science and conjecture going on in this film that it is difficult to know where to begin.

First, the notion that these airbrushed images are somehow now “full color” is false. Once airbrushed they are now “false color” just like remapping IR, UV, or X-Ray spectrums down to our visible spectrum is false color. Except in this case the coloring isn’t representative of data that we can’t see it is an artists interpretation of what is there. This means that the areas he thinks is something interested he can color around with the background color of choice and fill in the the “anomaly” with another color thus increasing contrast between the hues but improperly distinguishing one area from another. I have no idea where he got the notion early on in the film that there was a “giant humanoid in a jumpsuit” working on something blurry. For a real full color image next to a saturation enhanced version go here: http://www.lpod.org/?p=529 You can clearly see in the original the subtle hues of red in the darker regions. This is the real color of the Moon.

Next, most of the areas highlighted with the flare effect throughout the film looked like nothing more than craters, areas where there had been some kind of fracturing of the Moon’s surface during its cooling period, or rock slides down crater walls. This is regardless of the orientation of the picture. Are there interesting shapes to be found in these images? Too be sure – just like I can find interesting shapes of people in the patterns of color and texture on vinyl tiles or how people see animal shapes in clouds. The brain is a pattern seeking system. It doesn’t mean there is anything more to it. The only really interesting photo was “The Shard” by R. Hoagland. However to claim it is a physical structure just because it appears to be casting a shadow is a leap of logic. In my Astronomy 101 class in college we did basic photo analysis and measurement of plumes on one of Jupiter’s moons. This could simply be a picture taken a few moment after the impact of a small asteroid or a rare gaseous venting – both clouds of particles would cast shadows.

Onto the silly conclusion that the parallel lines in photos are related to space elevators. First some basic geometry. Pick two points on a sphere and project lines out perpendicular to the surface and what do you get? The answer is not two parallel lines. The lines if projected back into the sphere would meet to form an angle at the center of the sphere and would project from there out away from each other the further from the sphere you go. (The only way you could get visually parallel lines is if you did a 2D planar mapping of the surface of the sphere and then projected lines out in 3D space above the 2D surface, but this is not possible physically, only mathematically.) Many, and I might even claim most images captured by satellite and telescope are compound images. The image sensors are not large enough to capture the entire scene at once so many images are taken and layered and over-lapped to complete the whole picture. Any slight deviation in light even in the blackness of space when overlaid will compound. This is especially true if astronomers are using additive or multiplicative color filtering. Then these Alien “researchers” download the image, turn the contrast and saturation up to 1000% and see lines… well no duh! Those are likely the edges of segments of layered images coupled with horrible compression artifacts from the image format.

It is astounding that these guys don’t consider that the lines always run vertically in the images regardless of the orientation of the Moon or the position the camera must have been in. Why is that? If they were “structures” each different angle shot would have the lines constantly in a different angle in the image.

Finally, there is the perspective effect the director applied to the frequent “flyover” shots. Not only does this falsely stretch and distort the 2D images, but it looked to me like they also added some kind of parallax or normal mapping effect to give the impression of depth that isn’t there in the image. Couple all this with the already falsely enhanced images and there is very little “real” about the pictures at that point. If there was something interesting to see it should be plainly visible without needing to resort to this.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am all for investigation of UFO encounters and claims. I am all for looking for anomalous structures and things in photos. I want to know if there are or were others who have come here. However, making such bold claims such as “I colored this blur blue and now it looks like a ship therefore Aliens” on an image with a scale of 1 pixel = ~1200 meters without considering the most obvious explanations first is just preposterous and makes anyone who seriously considers the possibility of ET life visiting our solar system look preposterous.