Analysis of the LLNL "Plato" image by Chad Vanisko.

Mike,

I've been looking over the image that you sent me some. I'll e-mail you some other versions of the picture within the next few
days here, but let me make a few brief comments in the meantime.

Let me first say that I am in no way an expert in either image analysis or geomorphology. Even to the uninformed, however,
some things in this picture don't make sense. The most obvious is the dropout of detail (or, rather, total lack thereof) in the
central crater. Even the small craters within it lack detail. Simply put, everything looks artificially smooth.

Around the edges of the crater is something else interesting--a light band, particularly in the "northeast" section of the crater,
that is visible just before the obscured area starts. It looks as though someone didn't quite make it to the edges of the crater
when doing touch-up work. Notice that I say "looks," since I am not saying that this might not be perfectly normal. I just
know that it doesn't look right.

It could be argued that the dropout of detail in the crater is the result of either the added distance away from the camera (given
the lower altitude of the crater) or poor lighting. The thing is, neither of these is likely to be the case. Detail on the walls down
to the bottom of the crater is good, so there is no reason to think that the crater itself should be any different. I also fail to see
what would be blocking light coming into the crater.

A bigger factor in looking at the loss of detail in the crater is looking at the threshold levels of the photo. What one notices is
that there are many areas with far greater detail that are also much darker. Relatively speaking, the crater area is fairly bright.
Whereas detail in the image starts at around 45 (so far as I can recall) out of 256 levels of gray, the crater is mostly above 85.
It is lighter on the outside, then darker as one moves toward the middle. Changing threshold levels reveals that the central
crater is not the only relatively bright area with very little detail. In the upper right section of the photo, a similar loss of detail is
visible, though less apparent because it is over a much smaller area.

This other area, like the crater, also contains some strange geometric patterns. In the crater, you probably have noticed that
there are a number of right angles formed by what details are visible. This phenomena carries over into the upper right portion
of the photo. If anything, it is these patterns that would most make me think that the image had been touched up. Although I
do not know how the UV camera worked (I'm trying to find that out), it strikes me as odd that anything having to do with its
digital operation could have produced such pronounced geometric regularities in an area already devoid of detail. More likely,
they are the result of some touching up. The fractal laws that nature follows don't seem to apply here!

All told, I really can't say what I think about the image one way or the other. There is certainly enough about it to make me
think that it was touched up, but I don't have any explanations against which to weigh my doubts. Another thing to keep in
mind is that Clementine (and soon Clementine II) was a Defense Department product and, subsequently, the Defense
Department may have had any number of reasons not to release entirely accurate photos. Maybe they are covering up some
lost civilization, but maybe they are also covering up a weapons facility of our own, a possible landing site for some other secret
lander, etc. Who knows?

I'll get back to you some more, as I mentioned, with other versions of the photo that you sent me. In the meantime, you'll have
to tell me what you think about the image.

--Chad Vanisko
vanisko@montana.com
http://www.montana.com/personal/vanisko/ (The Cydonia Anomalies)