Concise Systematic Crater Chains, Your Take?

[Dok]

While some still keep thinking that electrical bolts may cause a CSCC, we have yet to see one at the size of these CSCCs.
Show me? You can't.

whow us they were made by alien weapons, oh you cant.

[Norval]

While some still keep thinking that electrical bolts may cause a CSCC, we have yet to see one at the size of these CSCCs.
Show me? You can't.

While some think that a broken comet may cause a CSCC, we have yet to see one do it. The scientists admit that their computer models will not make a CSCC pattern.
Show me? You can't.

The one thing that will cause these CSCCs, as we know from experience, are weapons. That is a fact.
We have the technology to duplicate these CSCC patterns.
We have the proof and the evidence of that in all kinds of war documentaries.

As most of the space exploration pictures are run through Department of Defense censors, artists "sanitizing" the images to be shown to the public, we are lucky to find the truth at all. IF, and I do mean IF, there was a recent war in our solar system you can bet your bottom dollar that the Info Police (IAC agents) are going to be all over this, , , , and so it seems, they are. It would stand to reason that this kind of information would scare the hell out of the world in general, , , , if true, if it were to get out and be seriously talked about.

If indeed someone wants to discuss the true potential of such a recent war in our solar system and it's cover up and probable impact on the world, and I think people should, then let's try that. 

Show us they were made by man. You can't.  So who made them?

[Waipio]

quote=Norval
If indeed someone wants to discuss the true potential of such a recent war in our solar system and it's cover up and probable impact on the world, and I think people should, then let's try that.  Smiley

Even if only a hypothetical exercise, IMO  thinking people would be  questioning;
Who, why, when, where, who won, who lost, where are they now, etc...?

[Dok]

While some still keep thinking that electrical bolts may cause a CSCC, we have yet to see one at the size of these CSCCs.
Show me? You can't.

While some think that a broken comet may cause a CSCC, we have yet to see one do it. The scientists admit that their computer models will not make a CSCC pattern.
Show me? You can't.

The one thing that will cause these CSCCs, as we know from experience, are weapons. That is a fact.
We have the technology to duplicate these CSCC patterns.
We have the proof and the evidence of that in all kinds of war documentaries.

As most of the space exploration pictures are run through Department of Defense censors, artists "sanitizing" the images to be shown to the public, we are lucky to find the truth at all. IF, and I do mean IF, there was a recent war in our solar system you can bet your bottom dollar that the Info Police (IAC agents) are going to be all over this, , , , and so it seems, they are. It would stand to reason that this kind of information would scare the hell out of the world in general, , , , if true, if it were to get out and be seriously talked about.

If indeed someone wants to discuss the true potential of such a recent war in our solar system and it's cover up and probable impact on the world, and I think people should, then let's try that. 

show us they were made by aliens.

Show me? You can't.

[Georgiacopguy]

The title on this thread is intellectually dishonest; they don't want anybodies 'take', they just want people who agree with them., hence my earlier comment about mental masturbation.

[Optimus]

show us they were made by aliens.

He can't!

[Waipio]

The title on this thread is intellectually dishonest; they don't want anybodies 'take', they just want people who agree with them., hence my earlier comment about mental masturbation.

How about your take on Iapetus please ?
(I did ask you earlier)
Is it a natural formation?

Tell ya what if  you dont answer the question, I will take it that you believe it is evidence of intelligence,  otherwise, please say you think it is natural...deal?


Just jokin,  Georgiacopguy... I dont want no trouble with the law !

But seriously all I'm asking of you is for your take on that thing around Iapetus.

Same goes to Dok and Route24....just askin for your take.....?

[Waipio]

Jackson H

Thanks for your take on Iapetus.
I see 3 parallel structures.

[Georgiacopguy]

Do I look like an exo-geologist to you? I'm a retired cop, this is way out of my league. The best I can think of is it's a pressure ridge, or a result of centripital force during early magma flow from the moons core.

As far as trouble from the law, as I said, I'm retired. The only problem you'll have from me is if you are an adulterer, an arsonist, committing fraudulent accidents for cash, or defrauding workmans comp. Or if you're just a douchebag.

How about your take on Iapetus please ?
(I did ask you earlier)
Is it a natural formation?

Tell ya what if  you dont answer the question, I will take it that you believe it is evidence of intelligence,  otherwise, please say you think it is natural...deal?


Just jokin,  Georgiacopguy... I dont want no trouble with the law !

But seriously all I'm asking of you is for your take on that thing around Iapetus.

Same goes to Dok and Route24....just askin for your take.....?

[Norval]

What does an exo- geologist look like?

Iapetus is a very interesting, , , , moon? to say the least.
The amount of craters, types, and sizes.
The CSCCs along the ridge of the , , , , mountain?, , , , , that is also interesting.
The orbit is unique also.

Many scientists wonder at the apparent destruction to the surfaces of some of these, , , moons.
They also wonder as to why other bodies are relatively untouched?

[Georgiacopguy]

It's simply amazing how much you say, to say nothing at all.

What does an exo- geologist look like?

Iapetus is a very interesting, , , , moon? to say the least.
The amount of craters, types, and sizes.
The CSCCs along the ridge of the , , , , mountain?, , , , , that is also interesting.
The orbit is unique also.

Many scientists wonder at the apparent destruction to the surfaces of some of these, , , moons.
They also wonder as to why other bodies are relatively untouched?

[Waipio]

The best I can think of is it's a pressure ridge, or a result of centripital force during early magma flow from the moons core.

Thanks !

I hadnt thought of centripital force, thats interesting

As I see the pics, it looks to me like three parallel structures of some sort.

Parallel for many miles at that.  Thats why I  think intelligence could be involved. I know you said  "Hoaglandesque" and I understand because his speculations are controversial. But have you read his entire Iapetus article?

[Georgiacopguy]

If its from Hoagland the hoaxster, I treat it as though its dripping with  plague.

Thanks !

I hadnt thought of centripital force, thats interesting

As I see the pics, it looks to me like three parallel structures of some sort.

Parallel for many miles at that.  Thats why I  think intelligence could be involved. I know you said  "Hoaglandesque" and I understand because his speculations are controversial. But have you read his entire Iapetus article?

[Waipio]

If its from Hoagland the hoaxster, I treat it as though its dripping with  plague.

Yeah, his speculation in his article.  But the pic...

Its not from Hoagland. As far as I know he has no spacecraft.

The pics were taken by NASA's  Cassini spacecraft.

[Georgiacopguy]

If its from NASA it's from NASA, it is what it is, I can take it or leave it. If its a theory, article, or even an idea from Hoagland, its tripe.

Yeah, his speculation in his article.  But the pic...

Its not from Hoagland. As far as I know he has no spacecraft.

The pics were taken by NASA's  Cassini spacecraft.

[Waipio]

If its from NASA it's from NASA, it is what it is, I can take it or leave it. If its a theory, article, or even an idea from Hoagland, its tripe.

If its from Hoagland the hoaxster, I treat it as though its dripping with  plague.

Yeah, his speculation in his article.
So  you are not gullible.  Good. I dont trust him myself. However in that article there are some facts from NASA and various info from the  general community of scientists / astronomers across history.  You dont have to trust Hoagland or NASA, but if you read it, you will be informed by the others from history and some of NASA's info.  From him and from others, I have seen  enough  to convince me that I cannot trust Hoagland,  NASA,  nor Govt  regarding space topics. So I take it all in and draw my conclusions.
My conclusions=something in our solar system is being hidden by TPTB.  

But the pic...

Its not from Hoagland. As far as I know he has no spacecraft.

The pics were taken by NASA's  Cassini spacecraft. Of course maybe NASA doctored the pic...they are famous for that.

So I dont agree with;  

If its from NASA it's from NASA, it is what it is, I can take it or leave it.

[Georgiacopguy]

Which picture specifically are you referring to, and what makes you think it's hiding something?

[Xill]

I have no problem understanding how a fragmented meteor fell that way following a strong gravitational push or pull.

[Waipio]

Which picture specifically are you referring to, and what makes you think it's hiding something?

I did not (yet) say a picture hiding stuff.

I say TPTB, NASA are hiding stuff.  

So far the only pic I referred to is the Iapetus 3 ring thing and I did not say that pic is hiding anything..

From the various websites of those (whistleblowers) who search pics released by NASA / ESA, how many of the  "suspicious'  pics have you seen yourself ?  

Here is one possibility... a pic of a crater on Mars.
Maybe you are familiar with this  pic?

"Crater Hale in perspective looking west"
  
Someone is lying or covering up or hoaxing.  

The hoax would be from;
a)   people who are presenting this pic as proof of doctored pics hiding stuff.
b)   someone at the Euro Space Agency website, planting a hoax for some reason.

Supposedly it is doctored, over-brightened to hide signs of civilization.
 
In a video, on camera, a guy goes to  the ESA site and goes to that crater pic, and he downloads it. He darkens it. He magnifies it. There is what looks just like a city, lotsa squares and rectangles...you'd  have to see it for yourself.

Over a year ago, I followed the video and went to the ESA site and saw the pic in its place, page 21 in the ESA Mars gallery.  The pic is no longer where it was a year ago.  Now it is elsewhere on the ESA site.

I dont know which party is lying / hoaxing.  Someone is.

The video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcR7VX-FwDY

Here is the pic,  at  different page on ESA site from google search. They have more than one pic, different angle / views


http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&keyword=Hale%20crater%20in%20perspective%20west&single=y&start=1



You could go to the ESA site and repeat steps in video. Maybe ESA  "fixed" it.
Still you wouldnt know who to believe...so   go figure...

Frankly I believe some of the 'whistleblowers'  are serious not  hoaxing.
That would mean:

a)  they are finding  evidence of intelligence in Sol system
b)  ESA / NASA is hiding  findings and or hoaxing their images..(why?)

[Georgiacopguy]

You left off a third option; the pictures are as they are, nobody has done anything, you have nothing more than a case of wishful thinking. As with most UFO hopefuls; you hope there is a coverup, you hope to see what you see, therefore you see what you wish to see, and throw out all ofther facts or possibilities. Looking at hte photo you referenced, i can see artifacts within the photo that are either topographical, or somehow a photographic artifact, without altering it to see them. Does it conclusively prove anything? Not at all. Hand that picture to a true beleiver, and they will swear to you there was a city there. I'm certain you are familiar with Occams razor; if not, I'll paraphrase 'The simplest explantion is usually the appropriate explantion." Whereas sugesting that other lifeforms existed, ev olved to the point of beoing capable of global cataclysm, or stellar war, obliterated themselves leaving almost impossible to see remnants, is by far, a  far fetched reasoning, and fraught with peril as far as logic goes. Whereas the simpler explantion of them beoing geological or phtographic oddities are far more reasonable, and are arrived at far easier. Ernst Mach advocated a version of Occam's razor which he called the Principle of Economy, stating that "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses."  Therefore, if you do not perceive the existence of alien life, or it's previous existence then how can you expect to reason it was there to begin with? Supposition is not theory.

You say you do not beleive or trust Hoagland, yet you reference his article. Trust absolutely nothing from his fingers or mouth. He is a fraud. He claims to have education he does not have, he claims to have participated in things he did not participate in, and he claims to have found things that are questionable, and frankly, unproveable. Proving his theories is akin to disproving a negative. He is the wikipedia of the intellectual crowd, unreliable even for a grade school book report.

[xfahctor]

Something to keep in mind when examining and judging this particular picture. It isn't one pic. It's a composite, an image of the area layered over a 3d topographical scanning.

[Georgiacopguy]

Do not, I repeat, DO NOT, confuse the lad with facts.

Something to keep in mind when examining and judging this particular picture. It isn't one pic. It's a composite, an image of the area layered over a 3d topographical scanning.

[Waipio]

You left off a third option; the pictures are as they are, nobody has done anything, you have nothing more than a case of wishful thinking. As with most UFO hopefuls; you hope there is a coverup, you hope to see what you see, therefore you see what you wish to see, and throw out all ofther facts or possibilities. Looking at hte photo you referenced, i can see artifacts within the photo that are either topographical, or somehow a photographic artifact, without altering it to see them. Does it conclusively prove anything? Not at all. Hand that picture to a true beleiver, and they will swear to you there was a city there. I'm certain you are familiar with Occams razor; if not, I'll paraphrase 'The simplest explantion is usually the appropriate explantion." Whereas sugesting that other lifeforms existed, ev olved to the point of beoing capable of global cataclysm, or stellar war, obliterated themselves leaving almost impossible to see remnants, is by far, a  far fetched reasoning, and fraught with peril as far as logic goes. Whereas the simpler explantion of them beoing geological or phtographic oddities are far more reasonable, and are arrived at far easier. Ernst Mach advocated a version of Occam's razor which he called the Principle of Economy, stating that "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses."  Therefore, if you do not perceive the existence of alien life, or it's previous existence then how can you expect to reason it was there to begin with? Supposition is not theory.

You say you do not beleive or trust Hoagland, yet you reference his article. Trust absolutely nothing from his fingers or mouth. He is a fraud. He claims to have education he does not have, he claims to have participated in things he did not participate in, and he claims to have found things that are questionable, and frankly, unproveable. Proving his theories is akin to disproving a negative. He is the wikipedia of the intellectual crowd, unreliable even for a grade school book report.

Thank you Gcg,

Hoagland aside, the pic of Hale crater has nothing to do with him.
This pic is  from Euro Space Agency.
 
It is named"Crater Hale in perspective looking west"

Since you say that you see only topographical features, it sounds like you did not watch the video. In the video, the guy went to the ESA site. He downloaded  the pic. He darkened it. He magnified it.  As I said there are miles of gridwork = squares and rectangles, like a city or whatever. There is no mistaking urban grid for topo features.

You dont have to watch the video actually.  If you believe what I say about the video....it looks just like an urban grid. Therefore you can rest assured someone  is lying or hoaxing...either  at  ESA  or  the guy in the video.

However, as he said, any one can repeat his steps  of darkening and magnifying the image.  That was over a year ago, in Feb 2008. I saw the pic in its original place on ESA site.  It is now moved. So maybe they "fixed" it or maybe the guy in the video was hoaxing.
Why not just watch the video?

Thank you for replying

[Waipio]

Something to keep in mind when examining and judging this particular picture. It isn't one pic. It's a composite, an image of the area layered over a 3d topographical scanning.

Is that analysis made from the image at ESA site?
Or "second hand" ?

Also xfahctor, did you post your answer of the thing girdling Iapetus as natural or not?

Sorry I dont recall...could you answer me please? I do recall that lefty, Georgiacopguy, and Jackson H did answer that.

Thanks

PS;  here is the crater Hale video.
Give it a look...if nothing else, you can use it as an example of a great  hoax !

"Crater Hale in perspective looking west"
  
Someone is lying or covering up or hoaxing.  

The hoax would be from;
a)   people who are presenting this pic as proof of doctored pics hiding stuff.
b)   someone at the Euro Space Agency website, planting a hoax for some reason.

Supposedly it is doctored, over-brightened to hide signs of civilization.
 
In a video, on camera, a guy goes to  the ESA site and goes to that crater pic, and he downloads it. He darkens it. He magnifies it. There is what looks just like a city, lotsa squares and rectangles...you'd  have to see it for yourself.

Over a year ago, I followed the video and went to the ESA site and saw the pic in its place, page 21 in the ESA Mars gallery.  The pic is no longer where it was a year ago.  Now it is elsewhere on the ESA site.

I dont know which party is lying / hoaxing.  Someone is.

The video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcR7VX-FwDY

[xfahctor]

Thank you Gcg,

Hoagland aside, the pic of Hale crater has nothing to do with him.
This pic is  from Euro Space Agency.
 
It is named"Crater Hale in perspective looking west"

Since you say that you see only topographical features, it sounds like you did not watch the video. In the video, the guy went to the ESA site. He downloaded  the pic. He darkened it. He magnified it.  As I said there are miles of gridwork = squares and rectangles, like a city or whatever. There is no mistaking urban grid for topo features.

You dont have to watch the video actually.  If you believe what I say about the video....it looks just like an urban grid. Therefore you can rest assured someone  is lying or hoaxing...either  at  ESA  or  the guy in the video.

However, as he said, any one can repeat his steps  of darkening and magnifying the image.  That was over a year ago, in Feb 2008.

Thank you for replying

Your in luck. this is an area I do happen to have some knowlege in. the "gridwork" you see is the wire frame of the 3 dimensional rendering of the topographicak scan. Have you ever played with 3d graphics programs? It's pretty much the same thing you are seeing here. The image takes the topography, renders a 3 dimensionalwire mesh and then layers the photographic image of the same area over top of it, a "skin" of sorts. Some of the artifacts you see in the image are a result of the stretching this "skin". since a flat image has far less surface area than a 3 dimensional piece, it has to stretch. The grid you notice is the "wire mesh".

[Waipio]

Your in luck. this is an area I do happen to have some knowlege in. the "gridwork" you see is the wire frame of the 3 dimensional rendering of the topographicak scan. Have you ever played with 3d graphics programs? It's pretty much the same thing you are seeing here. The image takes the topography, renders a 3 dimensionalwire mesh and then layers the photographic image of the same area over top of it, a "skin" of sorts. Some of the artifacts you see in the image are a result of the stretching this "skin". since a flat image has far less surface area than a 3 dimensional piece, it has to stretch. The grid you notice is the "wire mesh".

No, xfahctor.

In the video you  apparently  did not see the grid is nothing like an orderly  wire mesh pattern. It is a wide variety of rectangles and squares, like an urban grid develops over time.

Did your analysis come from the ESA site, please ?

...and your answer  re Iapetus please ?

[xfahctor]

Also xfahctor, did you post your answer of the thing girdling Iapetus as natural or not?

Sorry I dont recall...could you answer me please? I do recall that lefty, Georgiacopguy, and Jackson H did answer that.

Thanks

I haven't said much on that yet. I probably won't because I don't know that I could do the explanation justice. I could show some folks I know  who really know their shit and get an answer for you though. will probably take some time is all.

[xfahctor]

No, xfahctor.

In the video you  apparently  did not see the grid is nothing like an orderly  wire mesh pattern. It is a wide variety of rectangles and squares, like an urban grid develops over time.

Did your analysis come from the ESA site, please ?

yes, it came from the hi res version on the site and my long back ground in 3d graphics and modeling.

[Waipio]

this is from the video I am pretty sure
it is from www.marsanomalyresearch.com

[Georgiacopguy]

I did in fact review the video. You will be receiving a bill from my company for the 10 minutes and 47 seconds of my time that the phuck wasted. Including mileage, bandwidth, photo enhancement, headscratching, hystrerical laughter, and the facepalm.

I seriously did NOT have to enhance it to see what you spoke of. Once I actually saved the picture to my laptop, a simple click of magnify revealed the problem, those squares and grids are direct results of digital picture artifacts, as I suggested earlier. Wishful thinking combined with color, grayscale, and contrast enhancement would only magnify the obvious weaknesses of the digital image, thereby revealing the flaws easier.

Thank you Gcg,

Hoagland aside, the pic of Hale crater has nothing to do with him.
This pic is  from Euro Space Agency.
 
It is named"Crater Hale in perspective looking west"

Since you say that you see only topographical features, it sounds like you did not watch the video. In the video, the guy went to the ESA site. He downloaded  the pic. He darkened it. He magnified it.  As I said there are miles of gridwork = squares and rectangles, like a city or whatever. There is no mistaking urban grid for topo features.

You dont have to watch the video actually.  If you believe what I say about the video....it looks just like an urban grid. Therefore you can rest assured someone  is lying or hoaxing...either  at  ESA  or  the guy in the video.

However, as he said, any one can repeat his steps  of darkening and magnifying the image.  That was over a year ago, in Feb 2008. I saw the pic in its original place on ESA site.  It is now moved. So maybe they "fixed" it or maybe the guy in the video was hoaxing.
Why not just watch the video?

Thank you for replying

[Waipio]

quote=xfahctor

I haven't said much on that yet. I probably won't because I don't know that I could do the explanation justice.

sure
but can you even say whether you see anything that looks like miles of 3 parallel structures in that thing on Iapetus?

[Georgiacopguy]

There is now a fourth option you excluded to mention 4) The maker of the video is a UFO hopeful, since his life must suck, and he hopes a UFO will coem rescue him fro mthe duldrums of his pathetic life, so he ovethinks a simple picture, creating a hoax effect, thereby making you think that ESA or NASA are committing a hoax against the public....

Is that analysis made from the image at ESA site?
Or "second hand" ?

Also xfahctor, did you post your answer of the thing girdling Iapetus as natural or not?

Sorry I dont recall...could you answer me please? I do recall that lefty, Georgiacopguy, and Jackson H did answer that.

Thanks

PS;  here is the crater Hale video.
Give it a look...if nothing else, you can use it as an example of a great  hoax !

[Waipio]

I did in fact review the video. You will be receiving a bill from my company.. 

OK no prob
I just PM'd my credit card info to you so you can collect that and charge me for all  future responses

[Waipio]

There is now a fourth option you excluded to mention 4) The maker of the video is a UFO hopeful, since his life must suck, and he hopes a UFO will coem rescue him fro mthe duldrums of his pathetic life, so he ovethinks a simple picture, creating a hoax effect, thereby making you think that ESA or NASA are committing a hoax against the public....

OK you and xfahctor have clearly weighed in on this one.

Do you think that NASA / ESA etc are ever guilty of hiding anything ?

  

[xfahctor]

OK you and xfahctor have clearly weighed in on this one.

Do you think that NASA / ESA etc are ever guilty of hiding anything ?

  

other than industrial technology trade secrets? probably not. I am certain they aren't hiding aliens or sloar wars.

[Georgiacopguy]

I may not be a physicist or an engineer, or have a bunch of nice little letters to attach to my boilerpalte, but I like to think things out, read alot, and not take anything at face value. But I also expose everything I question with a heavy dose of common sense too. If I cannot explain A, then B is not possible if it is reliant on A. If proof would be demanded of B, then I must prove A. It's simply the investigator in me, I'm a facts oritented person, and supposition and theory, while they have their place, will only hold up for so long under enduring scrutiny.

If I am a skeptic of something, it is because I reasoned my way to that point.

In this instance, I agree with Xfahctor, I'm sure they hide technology, proprietary stuff (despite the taxpayer paying for it...) They may hide other details, it's difficult to prove an unknown. I'm sure htey subscribe to the same realm of thought as the rest of the government, of protecting us from what they think we shouldnt know. Does that translate into them hoaxing pictures? No. If you control the datastream of an orbiting spacecraft, and you control the pictures people can see, the video they see, WHY would you allow a photo to be taken, saved, processed, redacted or edited, when it is so easy to spot a doctored photo with todays technology? If a photo is taken which did not jibe with the mainstream story, that picture would A) never be taken or B)Never be heard from again. Only a fool would edit the photo and hope nobody noticed a misplaced pixel or several thousand of its closest pixel friends.

OK you and xfahctor have clearly weighed in on this one.

Do you think that NASA / ESA etc are ever guilty of hiding anything ?

  

[xfahctor]

ok, here's something to illustrate what I was talking about.

In this first image, I have a flat image of some grass



In this second image, I have applied the grass to a height map.



here it is zoomed up close

[Kilika]

I too downloaded the hires image (9.94mb). Nice picture. That said, I'm not a photo expert, just a BA in Multimedia, and that includes training in 2d graphics and textures for 3d modeling which I was also trained in for the gaming iindustry. Next to nothing for photo restoration/forensics though, and I'm not a photog, so I understand little about cameras and film stuff.

What I do know is making scenes look real for the 3d envoronment in a game, which admittedly is very low res compared to this image. Having looked at the image in Photoshop, messed with color levels, darkness/contrast, histogram and a couple other things, there is one thing that really standsa out to me...

There's a consistant pattern that flows from the camera view back to the background of the image and it follows the terrain, like a grid will. It appears to me to be in part a result of the pixeling of the digital image, but it could also be an indication of a "wire mesh" xfahctor mentioned. If you have ever built a game level in a game editor or in a 3d app like Maya or 3dsMax, you'll know that the terrain mesh doesn't retain perfect squares as the mesh is deformed in sculpting the terrain. The further the square is stretched out of square the more in thta spot the picture will distort and stretch. This "stretching" is common in 3d characters at the joints of moving parts if the texture is not "wrapped" on the character properly. Seams in a texture are also a point of stretching.

Those mesh squares will distort and warp because they are following the height map that you create when using the scupting tools to create hills and such, which is like a bump map for texturing but uses a photo grayscale image to determined the height of the terrian based on the color from black to white. If you have an overhead photo of any terrain, including the image in question, a digital 3d environment from a height map can be created easily. Done it plenty in Photoshop. And I've created more than one "alien" terrain, as well as levels for battfield 2 video game and a test level for Far Cry, but I would use the game editor to sculpt the terrain and use it's foilage tools for the grass and such. Bringing in an image for the terrain color just doesn't seem to work as well because it loses depth of field more.

I do find it interesting that when I take away the green channel, all those paterns go away. Not sure what to make of that not being a color expert. Otherwise they are there.

Is the image a legit picture of another world? I don't know, but I do know that can be created rather easy with current off the shelf 3d tools. Theres even special apps just for scene/terrain building that will import into a 3d app for games or any digital environment. SpeedTree is pretty cool for vegetation. It wouldn't take long to recreate that image in UnreaEd, Unreal's game editor.

[xfahctor]

I too downloaded the hires image (9.94mb). Nice picture. That said, I'm not a photo expert, just a BA in Multimedia, and that includes training in 2d graphics and textures for 3d modeling which I was also trained in for the gaming iindustry. Next to nothing for photo restoration/forensics though, and I'm not a photog, so I understand little about cameras and film stuff.

What I do know is making scenes look real for the 3d envoronment in a game, which admittedly is very low res compared to this image. Having looked at the image in Photoshop, messed with color levels, darkness/contrast, histogram and a couple other things, there is one thing that really standsa out to me...

There's a consistant pattern that flows from the camera view back to the background of the image and it follows the terrain, like a grid will. It appears to me to be in part a result of the pixeling of the digital image, but it could also be an indication of a "wire mesh" xfahctor mentioned. If you have ever built a game level in a game editor or in a 3d app like Maya or 3dsMax, you'll know that the terrain mesh doesn't retain perfect squares as the mesh is deformed in sculpting the terrain. The further the square is stretched out of square the more in thta spot the picture will distort and stretch. This "stretching" is common in 3d characters at the joints of moving parts if the texture is not "wrapped" on the character properly. Seams in a texture are also a point of stretching.

Those mesh squares will distort and warp because they are following the height map that you create when using the scupting tools to create hills and such, which is like a bump map for texturing but uses a photo grayscale image to determined the height of the terrian based on the color from black to white. If you have an overhead photo of any terrain, including the image in question, a digital 3d environment from a height map can be created easily. Done it plenty in Photoshop. And I've created more than one "alien" terrain, as well as levels for battfield 2 video game and a test level for Far Cry, but I would use the game editor to sculpt the terrain and use it's foilage tools for the grass and such. Bringing in an image for the terrain color just doesn't seem to work as well because it loses depth of field more.

I do find it interesting that when I take away the green channel, all those paterns go away. Not sure what to make of that not being a color expert. Otherwise they are there.

Is the image a legit picture of another world? I don't know, but I do know that can be created rather easy with current off the shelf 3d tools. Theres even special apps just for scene/terrain building that will import into a 3d app for games or any digital environment. SpeedTree is pretty cool for vegetation. It wouldn't take long to recreate that image in UnreaEd, Unreal's game editor.

I wih ESA had at least uploaded a decent B&W height map oh the hale, one preferable WITHOUT "Hale" stamped right in the middle of it. I would have re done a relief the hale itself instead of my own generic height map creation. I would have applied the original texture to it, then my grass texture example, then maybe even my own face.

[xfahctor]

I wih ESA had at least uploaded a decent B&W height map oh the hale, one preferable WITHOUT "Hale" stamped right in the middle of it. I would have re done a relief the hale itself instead of my own generic height map creation. I would have applied the original texture to it, then my grass texture example, then maybe even my own face.

though it would ahve been cool to have the letters "HALE" rising out of the crater in 3d like a tower...lol.