Notices
Results 1 to 53 of 53
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By John Galt

Thread: 3 Different Moon Images, same location, different objects?

  1. #1 3 Different Moon Images, same location, different objects? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Hello, new here! Looks like a nice forum.

    I started a fun discussion about a Lunar Orbiter image over on sci-forums, BEFORE they died.. and I'd be curious what you guy's think about it.

    The images of interest are around the Herodotus region, I believe near the Terminator. Essentially I have found an older, low quality image which show's an object south of a crater. In the higher quality version of the same photo the object is no longer there, but edited out. Then, in a third image of the area photographed during the Apollo misions, the object and edit are completely gone and there's just a crater.

    Here is the original image, which sent me looking for a high quality original, that Fred Steckling found. He is now passed away, but he found this image year's ago and put in his book about Moon structures and anomalies. Here is his image;



    I decided I would find the highest quality version of the photo he used, which lead me to this:


    During the discussion over these images, one of the helpfull astronomy buffs over at sciforums pointed me to this one:



    The bigger crater at the bottom is where the "object" should be, but is not. There are two other images from this Apollo sequence, and in all of them the object is now not visible. It's gone.

    In a nutshell, I really do believe that the Lunar Orbiter (4) photographed some sort of object that was mobile. I also feel that the "edit" was made to look like an image defect. The fact that I was able to find an image which show's no image defect, and an anomalous object in it's place, I think proves that NASA probably DID TRY TO HIDE IT.


    What do you guys think?


    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore cleft's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    137
    I am curious, what is your idea?

    Is it that NASA has some reason to cover it? If so, what speculations would you guess to be the reason? It is obvious that you have some sort of idea and have dwelt on this subject before as you have come prepared with the info in hand.

    Least I be rude, welcome to The Science Forum.


    "Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
    - H. G. Wells (1866-1946)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by cleft
    I am curious, what is your idea?

    Is it that NASA has some reason to cover it? If so, what speculations would you guess to be the reason? It is obvious that you have some sort of idea and have dwelt on this subject before as you have come prepared with the info in hand.

    Least I be rude, welcome to The Science Forum.
    Thanks for the welcome!

    My idea was summarized at the bottom of the thread. It looks as though NASA edited the object out, at some point after Steckling found it and placed it in his book?

    I have been using high quality images to prove or disprove "anomalous" images found on some of these older websites, and in most cases I dont find anything to corroberate them. In this case though, I found that the anomalous "object" was actually edited in an effort to hide it. Then in subsequent photographs of the same area the anomaly is completely missing.

    Might be interesting to note that Steckling said the object was a space-craft.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore cleft's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    137
    What I find interesting in the better resolution photo is that the shadow in the crater and the triangluar shadow seem to go sort of the same way. To me that would indicate something vertical and sloping as far as the triangluar shadow goes. The highest point being the right end.

    The last photo showing where these pictures are to have originated, I assume is of such a scale that they are not useful for discussion here as the site itself can not be made out. I realise that finding stuff on the net doesn't always lend to clarity you would wish as the shaded area is certainly out of the center focus.
    "Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
    - H. G. Wells (1866-1946)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    JX
    JX is offline
    Forum Junior JX's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    288
    Welcome btimsah, glad to have you with us. If you don't mind, I'm going to move this thread to the Pseudoscience section as it seems to be more appropriate there.

    Happy posting,
    Locke

    [Thread Moved]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke
    Welcome btimsah, glad to have you with us. If you don't mind, I'm going to move this thread to the Pseudoscience section as it seems to be more appropriate there.

    Happy posting,
    Locke

    [Thread Moved]
    Well, actually I do mind. This is not pseudoscience, it's astronomy.

    3 images of the Moon, which don't match and provide evidence of something potentially important.

    If the evidence leans toward a conspiracy or fraud, does that make it pseudoscience automatically?

    Thank's for the welcome. Sciforums did not move it to psuedoscience..
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by btimsah
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke
    Welcome btimsah, glad to have you with us. If you don't mind, I'm going to move this thread to the Pseudoscience section as it seems to be more appropriate there.

    Happy posting,
    Locke

    [Thread Moved]
    Well, actually I do mind. This is not pseudoscience, it's astronomy.

    3 images of the Moon, which don't match and provide evidence of something potentially important.

    If the evidence leans toward a conspiracy or fraud, does that make it pseudoscience automatically?

    Thank's for the welcome. Sciforums did not move it to psuedoscience..
    Yes, this thread can stay here. Welcome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman Communist Hamster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    30
    Ah, btimsah, we thought you'd never find us.
    Up the workers!
    Down Mcdonalds and their evil McCholesterol McShite
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Communist Hamster
    Ah, btimsah, we thought you'd never find us.
    Yeah I bet

    Good to see you
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    You guys may also want to visit;

    http://www.nasafiles.com/FINDINGS/Lu...2/Findings.htm :P

    I have the link's and accompanying images on the images page.

    (BTW, site is still being contstructed)
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by cleft
    What I find interesting in the better resolution photo is that the shadow in the crater and the triangluar shadow seem to go sort of the same way. To me that would indicate something vertical and sloping as far as the triangluar shadow goes. The highest point being the right end.

    The last photo showing where these pictures are to have originated, I assume is of such a scale that they are not useful for discussion here as the site itself can not be made out. I realise that finding stuff on the net doesn't always lend to clarity you would wish as the shaded area is certainly out of the center focus.
    Such a large, shadow producing object would be as visible as the crater next to it. If not even more so. It should be visible in the last (apollo) frame. There are 2 more shots of the area from Apollo and in none of them is this object visible again. :wink:
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Hey, btimsah! You found the refugee camp!

    I like your sig. We do agree on some stuff!

    That nasafiles site is great. With that excellent blow up of the mysterious triangle, it's evidently a flaw in the photograph.

    I've registered on the nasafiles.com forum, and said hi. Best of luck with that, honestly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    Hey, btimsah! You found the refugee camp!

    I like your sig. We do agree on some stuff!

    That nasafiles site is great. With that excellent blow up of the mysterious triangle, it's evidently a flaw in the photograph.

    I've registered on the nasafiles.com forum, and said hi. Best of luck with that, honestly.
    Thanks Silas.

    About the image.. If it's a flaw in the photograph, then I suppose there's a high quality mosaic of the same area without the flaw because apperently Steckling was studying the one without it.

    If someone could find the Lunar Orbiter 4 frame, WITHOUT the image defect you'd have one incredible image I bet.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    ...because apperently Steckling was studying the one without it.
    Oh? How so? The first picture you've posted is the Steckling picture, right? Which, by the way, is reversed for some reason. I recall noticing this in the thread at sciforums but not really feeling interested in posting. (I still don't, but here I am... go figure.) Anyway, the feature is reversed as well as other features in the picture. So, the image is a mirror image of the other image. And not evidence that the conspiracy is inconsistent... Who knows why it's reversed... Maybe crappy copy machine or something.

    Anyway, you're not being altogether honest in your characterization of that thread and what was said. No real surprise. Nor are you showing all the relevant photos.

    Let me see if I can find the cached thread for you... I don't remember the name... Hmm. (Doesn't seem to be one. Pity.)

    Anyway. It was pretty much established, I thought, that it was most likely a defect in the film of the one photo you were referencing. There were other photos of the area which didn't show this defect which you then used as 'evidence' that whatever was there was mobile and didn't need editing out of the other photos.

    The people agreed with you that there was an anomoly in the photo and talked about trying to find the raw image but you then took your apparent victory as an excuse to try to change the subject to the shadow thing.

    Anyway, I find the most likely answer to the question being that it was a flaw in the film. It happens. To you, the most likely answer is a government conspiracy hiding alien activity. And that's why this belongs in pseudoscience. As most of your threads will undoubtably lie.

    But, hey, I see a few other pseudos have joined up but have yet to post. So you won't be alone. Soon you'll be embraced in the warm hug of all the armchair jpg analyzer/conspiracy theorists. Fret not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus

    Oh? How so? The first picture you've posted is the Steckling picture, right? Which, by the way, is reversed for some reason. I recall noticing this in the thread at sciforums but not really feeling interested in posting. (I still don't, but here I am... go figure.) Anyway, the feature is reversed as well as other features in the picture. So, the image is a mirror image of the other image. And not evidence that the conspiracy is inconsistent... Who knows why it's reversed... Maybe crappy copy machine or something.
    BTW, You contradict yourself multiple times above. I don't care that the image is reversed. I don't think you understand the point of the images, or the fraud they represent.

    Anyway, you're not being altogether honest in your characterization of that thread and what was said. No real surprise. Nor are you showing all the relevant photos.
    Yet you've provided none of those supposed relevant photo's, nor any proof as too how I am being dishonest. You are completely off-base, and even worse completely ignorant of the thread that YOU DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN.

    Let me see if I can find the cached thread for you... I don't remember the name... Hmm. (Doesn't seem to be one. Pity.)

    Anyway. It was pretty much established, I thought, that it was most likely a defect in the film of the one photo you were referencing. There were other photos of the area which didn't show this defect which you then used as 'evidence' that whatever was there was mobile and didn't need editing out of the other photos.
    Sciforums is gone. Several said that it was a "true anomaly" and could not account for it. You might be

    The people agreed with you that there was an anomoly in the photo and talked about trying to find the raw image but you then took your apparent victory as an excuse to try to change the subject to the shadow thing.
    It's rather obvious chief. Steckling found the anomaly in an un-edited version of the photo. Now the same image, of much higher quality now hides that anomaly.

    Anyway, I find the most likely answer to the question being that it was a flaw in the film. It happens. To you, the most likely answer is a government conspiracy hiding alien activity. And that's why this belongs in pseudoscience. As most of your threads will undoubtably lie.
    A flaw in the film.. A flaw not in Stecklings frame of the same photograph? Which shows an object, no longer present at the same location in later Apollo missions? I do not think you follow the logic of this story, nor have you taken the time too.

    But, hey, I see a few other pseudos have joined up but have yet to post. So you won't be alone. Soon you'll be embraced in the warm hug of all the armchair jpg analyzer/conspiracy theorists. Fret not.
    [/quote]

    You can try to substitute you're lame accusation's and name calling for anything of substance. However, in the end you are the lazy one who never participated in the thread on Sci-forums and are now pretending that you did. Go flame someone else, because it's not working.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Now, since you so hated the "rotation", I correctly rotated and explained WHY your explanation is not sufficient below.



    Now, go ahead and attack me and call me liar again if you wish. Making it personal and calling the person nuts is easier sometimes than concentrating on the substance.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    I'm sorry, I've totally misunderstood. The flaw I was talking about was the triangle thing on the left. I don't see the shadow in the crater as an anomaly.

    I thought you already said that they are the same photograph, only one is a high quality version, whereas Stecklings is a low quality version. Things are bound to look different in a skewed picture from a different perspective, and of course if the triangle is a flaw it wouldn't appear in two photographs that are different, which appears to be the case.

    The "genuine" anomaly was a picture which appeared to show a long thin object that threw a traingular shadow. If this is a picture of the same object, then I withdraw my support for it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179


    You know.. I thought this was confusing, now I know it is!

    The anomaly = The triangular shaped object, which appears as a surface feature in Stecklings image.

    The crater = Just a crater used to pin-point the location. Nothing unusual about the crater.

    There is a signifigant difference between Stecklings triangle, and the edited one provided in the much higher quality image. You're initial flaw, is still valid, and was what I was talking about. There are so many different variables and images and missions and explanation's that it makes describing the anomaly difficult. I was only pointing out the crater's so that everyone understood the location of the crater and where the triangular shaped anomaly should be.

    NOW I'M GOING TO GO DIE. :P
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Look at the size and shape of the triangular shaped feature in the top two images.

    Then try to locate the triangular shaped feature in the Apollo frame. You can't.

    Hell, try to locate the triangular shaped feature in any other image next to that crater. It's not there anymore, because it's out probing people.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    So since inverted nexus has not responded, I assume he does not know what this object is and was talking out of his rear?

    Debunker's will only participate in a UFO thread if they can debunk something. If they think there is something really interesting or strange - they won't post or respond. Probably for fear of being ridiculed, or "becomming them".

    Just to recap -

    The fraudulent NASA edit, is the EXACT shape of the anomaly in stecklings photo.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Actually, btimsah, I had begun a response but lost interest in your inanity.
    Big surprise.

    But. Since you are still having problems remembering the way things went in the other thread, let me just post a couple of quick things.

    First. I now see your confusion and I have to say that you are an extremely poor communicator. I think that no one has realized that you were actually so foolish as to think that the 'object' in that original 'Steckling' image was anything different than was in the other photo.

    It's the exact same defect. Only blurrier.

    Of course it's not in any other photos. Because the defect is in the film. The film that was used to take that one picture. The same film that Steckling somehow managed to get the world's worst copy from (coincidence?) The same film which you've found a better copy from (something which Stecking didn't have the motivation to do.)

    It's the same picture. It's the exact same picture.

    Second. Your favorite argument is the 'you're just a debunker' argument. I saw you use it several times over at Sci and you actually had a point with a couple of people. The people that actually just posted in pseudo threads. Skinwalker was an excellent example of a debunker. He lives for it.

    But you're really stretching it to call me a debunker. Why? Because I don't make a habit of posting in these inane llttle threads of yours. THe only reason that I posted in this one was to say that you were misrepresenting the course of events over in the other thread.

    I did state that the posters in that thread did agree that you actually found a genuine anomoly. But. What they didn't say was that it was a deliberate edit to 'hide' something. The general consensus was most likely a defect in the film and they were actually going to try to do some searching for the raw image data to try to learn more. But. You chose that time to gloat and throw in a completely different photo and derail the thread completely. Remember? Of course you do.

    Anyway, your debunker argument is so patently worn out and hackneyed that it is useless. You even continually used it against Ophiolite when he was actually being nice to you and trying to teach you things. Trying to see things from your point of view. It's telling, this argument of yours, it shows that you're really a paranoid little shit.

    Anyway. As I said, I really don't believe that anybody thought that the photos were different. They are the exact same photo. Only Stecking, either deliberately or ineptly or for who knows what reason, has a reversed image that is incredibly blurry. But it is an image with the defect. The exact same defect. Not an object.

    You really think that picture shows something? Wow. That's funny. I mean fuuuuuuunny.

    But. Whatever. Go on with your inanity. Your choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus
    Actually, btimsah, I had begun a response but lost interest in your inanity.
    Big surprise.

    But. Since you are still having problems remembering the way things went in the other thread, let me just post a couple of quick things.

    First. I now see your confusion and I have to say that you are an extremely poor communicator. I think that no one has realized that you were actually so foolish as to think that the 'object' in that original 'Steckling' image was anything different than was in the other photo.

    It's the exact same defect. Only blurrier.

    Of course it's not in any other photos. Because the defect is in the film. The film that was used to take that one picture. The same film that Steckling somehow managed to get the world's worst copy from (coincidence?) The same film which you've found a better copy from (something which Stecking didn't have the motivation to do.)

    It's the same picture. It's the exact same picture.

    Second. Your favorite argument is the 'you're just a debunker' argument. I saw you use it several times over at Sci and you actually had a point with a couple of people. The people that actually just posted in pseudo threads. Skinwalker was an excellent example of a debunker. He lives for it.

    But you're really stretching it to call me a debunker. Why? Because I don't make a habit of posting in these inane llttle threads of yours. THe only reason that I posted in this one was to say that you were misrepresenting the course of events over in the other thread.

    I did state that the posters in that thread did agree that you actually found a genuine anomoly. But. What they didn't say was that it was a deliberate edit to 'hide' something. The general consensus was most likely a defect in the film and they were actually going to try to do some searching for the raw image data to try to learn more. But. You chose that time to gloat and throw in a completely different photo and derail the thread completely. Remember? Of course you do.

    Anyway, your debunker argument is so patently worn out and hackneyed that it is useless. You even continually used it against Ophiolite when he was actually being nice to you and trying to teach you things. Trying to see things from your point of view. It's telling, this argument of yours, it shows that you're really a paranoid little shit.

    Anyway. As I said, I really don't believe that anybody thought that the photos were different. They are the exact same photo. Only Stecking, either deliberately or ineptly or for who knows what reason, has a reversed image that is incredibly blurry. But it is an image with the defect. The exact same defect. Not an object.

    You really think that picture shows something? Wow. That's funny. I mean fuuuuuuunny.

    But. Whatever. Go on with your inanity. Your choice.
    You are only left with one option in you're inANITY. That is to claim the objects are the same. I know how you operate, and so I'll just leave the two images up for comparison and let you're blind bias and insanity speak for itself.

    You don't really believe what you wrote, but here they are;



    Is the same as this;



    Continue living in you're fanatical debunkery world, chief. It's important to notice the sharp, deep shadow of the second image. Again, not that you care or are interested in the truth. You've allready decided, for one reason and one reason only. "To win".

    It's the only reason you post in these sections.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Invert, you can try as hard as you want, but you're agenda is obvious...

    Do me a favor and learn how to debate, because at this point you are getting rolled up. :wink:
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    You are only left with one option in you're inANITY.
    That was my first idea. And from what others have posted, there's too.
    Seriously, guy.
    To us (me anyway. I can't speak for others), it's as plain as that orange blob in the other thread was the flag. The only reason that this has never been said before was because it was so obvious... I thought.

    You don't really believe what you wrote, but here they are;
    Hmm.
    I don't really believe what I wrote?
    Why don't you think I do?

    Is the same as this;
    Yes.
    With the sole exception that Steckling's picture is an incredibly poor reproduction.

    Look at it.
    Look at the dark spot in the bottom right corner of the triangle. You can see it in both images.

    You can just barely make out the crater to the upper left of the triangle. Above what would be the hypotenuse.

    In Steckling's picture you can see nothing. It's all blurred out and distorted.

    Do you really believe that that is something other than the same defect in the detailed image?
    Get a grip man.

    It's important to notice the sharp, deep shadow of the second image.
    It's only deep and dark because the details are all washed out. It's distorted. You can see the distortion in that the light areas which are overwhite push into the dark area of the defect. This causes the triangle to appear to have sharp corners. You see this same effect in the crater above the hypotenuse practically disappearing because of the whiteout.

    You've allready decided, for one reason and one reason only. "To win".

    It's the only reason you post in these sections.
    I've already told you why I've posted in here.
    Because you've pissed me off with your debunkery bullshit. (Or was that the other thread? Dunno. All your threads are the same. Good old one track mind.

    Invert, you can try as hard as you want, but you're agenda is obvious...
    Agenda.
    Hee hee.
    Tell me more about my 'agenda'.

    Do me a favor and learn how to debate, because at this point you are getting rolled up.
    That's just it. I'm not debating you. I've already said (in this thread or the other one, whichever) that I don't think that you can be reasoned with. You've shown it again and again.


    Here.
    Let's do a poll.
    Who here thinks the blurry triangle in Stecklings picture is the same defect as the other picture?
    Let's see a show of hands.


    Edit:

    ...because at this point you are getting rolled up.
    Ha!
    I just realized what you meant by this. At first I thought you meant that I wasn't debating but was rather just being 'pissy' or something.
    But. You actually mean that you think that you're 'rolling me up'.
    Right?
    Ha!
    You're a funny guy.
    I know who your debating style reminds me of.
    Truthseeker.
    You two could be dead ringers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    I read that it was the same photo, only a better version, on your website, btimsah.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    I read that it was the same photo, only a better version, on your website, btimsah.
    I don't know what you mean by this oohh I see what you mean.

    The problem here is you're comprehension, not my communication. If you don't know which images are which by now I'm afraid this won't get anywhere. You can locate these images and do the work yourself without me. I provided the needed images on the page on my site.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Invert;

    The two images which you claim contain the same image defect, is interesting because the defect and object in both, differ in size, shape and angle. Of course this is if you examine them. For example, the bigger image defect extends further above the crater next to it and is wider and darker.

    See image below;



    The red area represents the rough size of the black shadow in the first image and the rest of the crap on the edges is apart of this fake bevel they apperently added.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    I know that the blurry image appears smaller. I've addressed this already. It's because the edges of the image are extremely blurry and push into the dark shape of the defect. This is demonstrated clearly in the small crater almost completely vanishing by the effect.

    This explains the smaller size and also the sharper angles at the corners (only the bottom two corners... I notice. This is likely significant as it shows that the blurring is more significant from the bottom rather than the top. The white pushes into the image and bisects the curved corners of the triangle to give them a sharper appearance.)

    That's what I think anyway. That's what I first thought when you showed those pictures in the other thread. And when you showed them in here. And as I look at them now it still seems the same.

    I think that this is the general consensus of what the rest believe as well. Will just have to wait and see if enough people read and care to post their opinion on the matter.

    I really was surprised when you explicitly stated that you thought the blurry image of Steckling's photo was the object that you'd said he'd been examining. I thought you were talking about some other photo he had seen but didn't publish.


    A question that occurs to me (which apparently doesn't concern you at all) is why is Steckling's picture so bad? Why is it reversed? Why does it show the streaking? This occurs to me because I seriously have to wonder if he didn't deliberately manipulate the image to make it more credible. Not that it credibly shows anything, but that the blurriness means that something could be there if only the image were clearer. It invites the imaginative mind to fill in the blur. It's a rorshchach pattern. And I suspect that Steckling made it so deliberately.

    But, I could be wrong and in the absence of any knowledge about Steckling's demeanor and motivations I won't speculate.

    It's called skepticism. And is crucial to the scientific outlook.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    I don't know about my supposed comprehension difficulties, this is what it says on your site, and it appears to be literally true.
    Quote Originally Posted by nasafiles.com
    Fred Steckling produced the photo above in his book he wrote, many years ago. Unfortunately he is now passed away - but this image is the smoking gun I've been looking for.

    He said the object to the right was a space craft. I could not figure out what it was, but did think it looked rather anomalous and appeared to almost be a giant wall or vehicle sitting next to the crater. I was able to find an extremely high quality version, of the same image from the Lunar Orbiter Atlas, see the zoom below.
    Emphasis mine.

    The other thing I really don't understand is what you are trying to imply about the differences in the two images. If there was manipulation (ie editing out) of suspicious stuff, don't you think they would eliminate it altogether?

    You're totally free on your own website to state that "the only explanation" for a weird looking object in one photo is that it's something real that flew away, but here you will be challenged by people who just aren't willing to deny what their reason tells them. There is a picture of something apparently on the moon which just should not be there, though it could conceivably be a flaw in the lens or film. There is another picture of same area that does not show the object at all. Logical conclusion: photographic flaw theory confirmed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    I don't know about my supposed comprehension difficulties, this is what it says on your site, and it appears to be literally true.
    Quote Originally Posted by nasafiles.com
    Fred Steckling produced the photo above in his book he wrote, many years ago. Unfortunately he is now passed away - but this image is the smoking gun I've been looking for.

    He said the object to the right was a space craft. I could not figure out what it was, but did think it looked rather anomalous and appeared to almost be a giant wall or vehicle sitting next to the crater. I was able to find an extremely high quality version, of the same image from the Lunar Orbiter Atlas, see the zoom below.
    Emphasis mine.

    The other thing I really don't understand is what you are trying to imply about the differences in the two images. If there was manipulation (ie editing out) of suspicious stuff, don't you think they would eliminate it altogether?

    You're totally free on your own website to state that "the only explanation" for a weird looking object in one photo is that it's something real that flew away, but here you will be challenged by people who just aren't willing to deny what their reason tells them. There is a picture of something apparently on the moon which just should not be there, though it could conceivably be a flaw in the lens or film. There is another picture of same area that does not show the object at all. Logical conclusion: photographic flaw theory confirmed.
    Well, when I say the same image I am saying they both from the same image. What's the mystery here? I found the older, book-quality Steckling version. I wanted to compare it to the highest quality image I could find. The difference between the "error" between the two images is too great to claim they both contain the same image defect.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus
    I know that the blurry image appears smaller. I've addressed this already. It's because the edges of the image are extremely blurry and push into the dark shape of the defect. This is demonstrated clearly in the small crater almost completely vanishing by the effect.
    There is no way, no matter how bad this image is, that the shallow, white edges around the dark region in the Steckling frame could become dark and silvery embossed without editing. Also, if what you are saying is true then the Crater next to the EDIT would also be screwed up.

    This explains the smaller size and also the sharper angles at the corners (only the bottom two corners... I notice. This is likely significant as it shows that the blurring is more significant from the bottom rather than the top. The white pushes into the image and bisects the curved corners of the triangle to give them a sharper appearance.)
    To be honest the Steckling frame almost appears to show a wall protruding from half of a crater. Are you saying the white, slope-like edges are an image defect? I thought the embossed, silvery edit was more obvious.

    That's what I think anyway. That's what I first thought when you showed those pictures in the other thread. And when you showed them in here. And as I look at them now it still seems the same.
    Yes, but thats still wrong.

    I think that this is the general consensus of what the rest believe as well. Will just have to wait and see if enough people read and care to post their opinion on the matter.
    No, they did not all believe that. I think you interpreted that they did. As someone who works in photoshop often, I know what an image edit looks like. It litterally looked like whoever made the LO Atlas image severely beveled and embossed the area to hide the deep shadow shown in the Steckling frame. That's why it's bigger, wider and darker than the Steckling frame. My guess is other's saw it as an obvious edit. Except those who find it hard (almost impossible) to believe NASA would do that.

    I really was surprised when you explicitly stated that you thought the blurry image of Steckling's photo was the object that you'd said he'd been examining. I thought you were talking about some other photo he had seen but didn't publish.
    From what I understand, Steckling provided this photo in a book he made years ago. He said that the EDIT or object was a "space craft".

    A question that occurs to me (which apparently doesn't concern you at all) is why is Steckling's picture so bad? Why is it reversed? Why does it show the streaking? This occurs to me because I seriously have to wonder if he didn't deliberately manipulate the image to make it more credible. Not that it credibly shows anything, but that the blurriness means that something could be there if only the image were clearer. It invites the imaginative mind to fill in the blur. It's a rorshchach pattern. And I suspect that Steckling made it so deliberately.
    It concerned me, that's why I went and found the high quality image we have today. That's also why I was dissapointed the area was blotted out. His image is so bad because it was recieved before the internet. It was put in his book around the 1970/80s? The guy is dead now so it was a loooong time ago. The rotation of the image is rather subjective, as NASA tends to rotate images so that NORTH IS facing up. How you rotate them is really not important in this instance. I wish I could find a higher quality image of the Steckling frame. I might have to buy his book! If it's even still in print. The reason I doubt his is faked is because of the time when he produced this image it would have been almost impossible to do so. Photoshop was not around, neither was Windows 3.1.. lol Secondly, it does not look edited, just old.

    But, I could be wrong and in the absence of any knowledge about Steckling's demeanor and motivations I won't speculate.
    It's called skepticism. And is crucial to the scientific outlook.
    Skeptiscim is fine, when used fairly. Skeptiscism is why, when I saw Stecklings photograph that I did not jump to conclusions. I simply found a better quality image to compare the images two and illustrated that something was there, but in my opinion covered up with a fake image edit. It may be hard to believe, but I am skeptical regarding all anomalous images. It might be interesting to note, this is another one of Stecklings images below which I want to find.



    The crater is kind of interesting.. in a purely skeptical way.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    btimsah. What is being edited?

    Where is the edit?

    Why did they leave an artificial-looking triangle in the picture if there was an edit?

    Why do you think the Steckling picture is more reliable, despite the fact that it has less information in it?

    As a matter of interest, you are now assuming that the Steckling photograph and the hi quality photograph are different photographs of the same area. Not a bad assumption given the large scale differences in the quality of the picture. But in fact there are no "second" pictures, of anything in space. Not two from the same position, looking directly down. For that reason they must be the same shot, only with different quality. I only found this out from looking at the stuff about The Face on Mars. The Face is only a tiny detail of one single photograph that was taken in 1976 or roundabout. No further photograph of the same place was available until Nasa specifically got a close up of the same area, some 25 years later, and they had to go specially to do it.

    That bottom crater picture actually looks just like a Dune worm surfacing.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    btimsah. What is being edited?
    The "wall" or anomalous object next the crater in the Steckling image. The silvery, embossed gray object next to the crater in the LO ATLAS image. Follow me here.. Their from the same photograph, but in one image the anomaly is present. In the other image the anomaly is edited out. They are two different version's of the same image.

    Where is the edit?
    In the Lunar Orbiter Atlas photograph. Where the anomaly is in the Steckling frame, the edit is it's replacement. :wink:

    Why did they leave an artificial-looking triangle in the picture if there was an edit?
    Perhaps the edit was done later, after Steckling revealed it in his book? Or perhaps he got it through other means.

    Why do you think the Steckling picture is more reliable, despite the fact that it has less information in it?
    Because the silvery looking feature in no way resembles the feature shot in the Stecklings frame. The crater in both images resemble each other and look fine. Why would the anomaly next to it look so strange, yet not the crater?

    As a matter of interest, you are now assuming that the Steckling photograph and the hi quality photograph are different photographs of the same area. Not a bad assumption given the large scale differences in the quality of the picture. But in fact there are no "second" pictures, of anything in space. Not two from the same position, looking directly down. For that reason they must be the same shot, only with different quality. I only found this out from looking at the stuff about The Face on Mars. The Face is only a tiny detail of one single photograph that was taken in 1976 or roundabout. No further photograph of the same place was available until Nasa specifically got a close up of the same area, some 25 years later, and they had to go specially to do it.
    Here we go again. THEY ARE THE SAME PHOTOGRAPH, JUST DIFFERENT VERSIONS. BOTH THE STECKLING IMAGE AND THE LUNAR ORBITER ATLAS IMAGE ARE REPORTED TO BE THE SAME IMAGE NUMBER, JUST DIFFERENT VERSIONS. This is the only time this crater is photographed during the Lunar Orbiter series. It's not photographed again untill the Apollo missions. When, ironically neither the anomalous object or EDIT are there any longer.

    That bottom crater picture actually looks just like a Dune worm surfacing.....
    I am not sure what to make of that crater.. It was the "wall-like" feature on the (presumed) northern wall which looks interesting. That and the bizzare curved lines on the crater wall. Problem is I can't find a comparison image for study.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Sophomore Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Toowoomba, Australia
    Posts
    110
    Hi btimsah,
    I think that Steckling's image is just a bad reproduction of the image you think is edited. I don't understand why you think that Steckling's image show anything that isn't shown in the other image?

    Really, think about this. Your thesis is that the featureless black triangle in Steckling's image is something that the Conspiracy decided had to be censored... and to hide it, they erased it with a larger featureless black triangle? Hello???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Toowoomba, Australia
    Posts
    110
    btimsah, here's an experiment for you.
    Take the atlas image, flip it and reduce it, then crank up the brightness and contrast.

    Does it look familiar?

    Now, just blur it and screw up the brightness and contrast some more to knock out the image detail (like in Steckling's image)...

    I think you'll be impressed how close you can get to Steckling's image simply by poor reproduction. I've done this myself, by the way, so don't say it can't be done.

    Pete
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    See? This is why I could never have become a professional scientist. I'm simply useless at designing the simple experiment that gets to the right result. Why didn't I think of that!?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete
    Hi btimsah,
    I think that Steckling's image is just a bad reproduction of the image you think is edited. I don't understand why you think that Steckling's image show anything that isn't shown in the other image?
    Hey Pete, even with some image degradation the images still don't match. The location of the object extends further in the Atlas frame than it does in the Steckling frame. This cannot be because of the quality Pete.

    Really, think about this. Your thesis is that the featureless black triangle in Steckling's image is something that the Conspiracy decided had to be censored... and to hide it, they erased it with a larger featureless black triangle? Hello???
    That did not make any sense. Unless you think the fake black, embossed triangle is an anomaly? I will try to make my own sense then.

    My thesis is that the black, embossed image "defect" as you call it is fake. It was created in order to cover up the object that Steckling perhaps discovered. Not using any sort of conspiracy bullshit, but very simple rules and regulations regarding the use of images which are a threat to our national security. Perhaps such a craft would have been considered such a thing and thus edited out? Of course I am just guessing, but that is not the heart of my claim. The heart of my claim are the two differing photographs illustrating that NASA possibly edits image which contain sensitive material. Perhaps it is an advanced DOD project they edited out?? Who knows, but just because I don't know the WHY does not mean I cannot prove it did not happen.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete
    btimsah, here's an experiment for you.
    Take the atlas image, flip it and reduce it, then crank up the brightness and contrast.

    Does it look familiar?

    Now, just blur it and screw up the brightness and contrast some more to knock out the image detail (like in Steckling's image)...

    I think you'll be impressed how close you can get to Steckling's image simply by poor reproduction. I've done this myself, by the way, so don't say it can't be done.

    Pete
    I tried and tried and could not get the same duplication between both the white and black areas. Also, there was always a dark line or ring around the atlas version. The FAKE black and silvery outlining ruined the experiment. The edit was designed to look somewhat similar, but they just made it too big, with too many different shades of color to match with Stecklings frame.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    See? This is why I could never have become a professional scientist. I'm simply useless at designing the simple experiment that gets to the right result. Why didn't I think of that!?
    If I had raised the contrast and brightness to illustrate an anomaly you would be saying (any debunker would) that it was fraudulent. However, when you need to debunk an image using that method it's fine.

    You can turn the brightness and contrast down on any image to remove what you believe is or is not there. It's just not much of an experiment.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    The method suits whatever the thing is. For example, you wanted to show an anomaly, btimsah, so you diligently went out and obtained a very high quality photograph of the same thing.

    What the hell, NASA probably did edit the picture for publication, blocking out the triangle to black. It seems not unlikely to me that they possibly did that because otherwise it looked like a weird alien spaceship, which would provoke comment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus
    Skinwalker was an excellent example of a debunker. He lives for it.
    Hey... everyone has to have a hobby.

    But I think Btimsah's Triangle is an anomaly that we all will have to agree that there simply isn't enough information to make an informed opinion about the cause. "It could be... " a lot of stuff. From a parked spaceship to Donald Trump's Hummer to a trick of light and shadow to a flaw in the negative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Toowoomba, Australia
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by btimsah
    If I had raised the contrast and brightness to illustrate an anomaly you would be saying (any debunker would) that it was fraudulent. However, when you need to debunk an image using that method it's fine.

    You can turn the brightness and contrast down on any image to remove what you believe is or is not there. It's just not much of an experiment.
    Exactly!

    Stickler's image is the one with badly adjusted brightness and contrast, and that's what you're using to illustrate the 'anomaly'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman craterchains's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, usa
    Posts
    58
    Maybe some should take lessons in photo enhancement from Dr. Wood of Lunar
    Picture of the Day site? http://www.lpod.org/

    :wink:
    It's not what you know or don't know, but what you know that isn't so that will hurt you. Will Rodgers 1938
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    New Member Dan Luna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Manchester UK
    Posts
    2
    For information, the photos (near crater Herodotus B in Lunar Orbiter photo IV-157-H3) in my printed Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moon and Atlas and Gazetteer of the Near Side of the Moon, both produced in 1971 by different personnel at two separate NASA Centres, both look like the alleged "edit" shown in the higher quality photos. They look like blemishes caused when the developing material was pulled away from the film to me. As this photo was taken on 22 May 1967 and Lunar Orbiter had been in a very predictable orbit since 11 May, photographing strips of the Moon in sequence, I'd be surprised if any aliens couldn't work out when it was going to arrive over them and either move or cover up their craft.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman weirdesky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    27
    Its really weird, but isn't a conspiracy. The government should have known that if this was an alien space craft, why did they cover it up, if i slips into the media, they could claim it was a scam or some such thing. But if it is an alien spacecraft then...
    It's hard to soar like an eagle when your flying with turkeys
    It's hard to be humble when your as great as I am.
    The world changes so fast, you couldn't be wrong all the time even if you tried
    Judging by the way some church members live, they need fire insurance
    The only thing in life acheived without effort is failure
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46 George Leonard's PONDS and HANGERS 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    4
    Well folks, if you ever look at a lunar photo atlas, like Lunar Orbiter Atlas of the Moon, you will see that these PONDS are all over many of the pictures. They also come in sets of 2 and 4 in a square shape.
    When the negative(s) are enlarged one will see they are emulsion blobs - development splatter marks.
    Many of the weird bacteria looking finger-print types are also delevopment artifacts.
    I have a new 400+ page analysing Mr Leonard, Steckling and Hoagland's farces.
    ROSS weirdvideos.com
    Look for my book on Amazon.
    Moon Mars Monuments Madness - br R.S. Marshall
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Moderator Comment:
    1. Thread necrophilia is frowned upon. The thread has been dead for almost eight years!
    2. Advertising one's material is generally frowned upon.
    3. Joining the forum for the exclusive purpose of advertising one's material is prohibited.
    4. Do you want to argue a case against post deletion? (I won't be waiting eight years for a response.)
    5. Welcome to the forum. Your book topic looks interesting, but this is not the way to go about it.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,766
    Quote Originally Posted by weirdvideos View Post
    Look for my book on Amazon.
    Moon Mars Monuments Madness - br R.S. Marshall
    Hmmm.
    Your search "Moon Mars Monuments Madness R.S. Marshall" did not match any products.
    Resurrecting an 8 year old thread to promote a non-existent book... not that clever.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    4
    OOOOOOOOOOOooooops?
    I am sorry
    Thius will not happen again.
    Didnt read the fine print.
    I will repost WITHOUT the advert.
    I researched MOON alien artifcats for 15 years - actually know
    Hoagland... lOL
    Bob Tice at NSSDC and others.
    There are no artifacts on the Moon.
    Sorry.
    The new LROC pictures prove this.
    %ROSS
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Thanks, much appreciated. If you become a regular member of the forum some members will become interested in your research. Once established we have no objection to you making them aware of your book at that time. We'd probably be delighted. Anyway, welcome, again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51 Moon Monument Photo-development artifacts: 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    4
    Done a lot of study. Will be posting a lot of short samples of GEORGE LEONARD's and FRED STECKLING'S
    alien artifacts showing them in their NEW LROC (Lunar Rec. Orb. Camera) environment. As we look at some of these, it is hoped that we will see the deception of alien artifacts and the alien presence theory.
    "A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a lunatic." -- Dresden James
    The following is an example of how blurry pictures and sun light angles, and shadows can trick the eye into believing alien artifact towers might exist on the moon when, with higher resolution pictures (LROC), they are not, but are common ordinary boulders, crater ejecta or some other natural lunar material. --Ross, the Boss
    The BLAIR CUSPIDS--The shadows cast by the Cuspids in Aeriadaeus B.
    LOc. 5.1 deg. N by 15.5 deg. E
    Lunar Orbiter-II-62-M
    and see...LO-II-062-H3, Leonard's 86-H-758, LROC M159847595RC_pyr = (enlarged)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52 Leonard's BLAIR CUSPIDS 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    4
    I dont know how to do picture uploads. Site not all that easy to figure out.
    If someone knows how to upload pics here at forum, over the 10000 wd limit let me know.
    Go here and see comparisons
    See blair cuspids:
    LO-II-62-M
    LO-II-062-H3
    Leonard's 86-H-758
    LROC M159847595RC_pyr
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,344
    I don't think the upload tool works (I haven't managed to get it to work since the last software upgrade), what most people do is upload them to dropbox or photobucket and copy them across from there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •