Beneath NASA photographs

Hi all,
I first noticed some oddities with Pathfinder pix (longtime webheads will recall sites like 'the peculiar rocks of mars' which went into this) and after a lot of thought and study of the pix, gradually began coming up with a 'unified field theory' to explain what NASA have been doing..
So I've made a site with a few sections thus far, using offical Moon pix (only a couple of Mars sofar), demonstrating examples of how NASA hides detail and data - some of their methods are no-brainer simple, others are a lot more tricky. Their techniques range from using negatives in pictures, to hide and blur detail, through to faking craters and surfaces.

(One of the reasons its so difficult to get a clear view of anything anomalous with NASA pix, is because there are multiple layers of surfaces and textures over and within the photograph itself - and the real landscape itself generally is 'below' and underneath the featureless bland surface that NASA layers over all its pix.)

I show the various methods used, as well as remove the assorted masks on official pix to demonstrate NASA photo faking techniques.

Now assuming Im not crazy - I'll be adding sections showing how NASA themselves have accidentally made a number of the anomalous structures that the conspiracy theorists have found, as NASA itself quietly hides the reality of the Moon and Martian landscapes..

(Putting my site url here, because Im not sure if I've enabled the site info to run with this message..hope this is of interest to forumites: www.geocities.com...

Cool site... Ever since I saw that special on FOX about how the Moon Landing could have been one big Hoax, I've been wondering whether We've really landed on the moon... let alone Mars.

Curious are you here just to hawk your site?

i suggest you guys should check out these two sites. lots of good educational info.

www.clavius.org...

www.badastronomy.com... (GiantsFan i really recomend this one)

well i've been looking at your site MrFrankenstein, it's interesting, but i must say it doesn't seem to prove anything.. infact i found it confusing. perhaps i just wasn't reading that site very well. how do you magicly seperate layers in the images to find all this "hidden" stuff? like the colour layers you find on the black and white images... seems like you're just messing around with the hue and staturation options.

you also seem to be working with lowres images. at least the ones on your site are. too much compression. that can affect the image in serious ways. it takes away detail and when compressed a lot it can alter the colour of the images a bit.

i'm guessing you are working in photoshop? if you could provide some detailed examples as how you go about doing your "photo analysis" that would be nice. it's just from my end it seems like you're just applying filters, messing with the threshold levels and saturating the images... that and zooming in on pictures that are already small and compressed to begin with.. when you zoom in on those things are going to look odd and can end up distorting the image.. NASA supplies us with really large images that we can look at. i suggest you get your hands on some of those if you haven't already.

anyway i just didn't find your site convincing.

As geocities are closing the site coz of too much downloading, I've got a mirror up at members.fortunecity.com... (which also has the first bits of an 'Apollo Missions' section..

In response to JRA, first off, thanks for looking(although choosing to not see) - and then re your weirdly ignorant statement about NASA 'providing large images to work with' - if you browse their archives, here and there you perhaps get images of a meg or two - at least for the Apollo and pre-Apollo flights, but generally they're of an appalling quality, which dissolve into fragments when you attempt to go into them. The Mars pix arent much better with sizes between 600k and 9megs if you're lucky..

Where possible, I have been using hi-res images, so Im hardly 'zooming in on already small photographs'.. but you seem to miss the point about the end quality of product when there's been deliberate massive flattening, reduction of detail, depth, fake masking and fake textures overlaid onto NASA's supposedly genuine photographs - so dont blame ME for having fuzzy pix..

I notice you couldnt prove me wrong about NASA using negatives in their photographs - as you never mentioned it. Ditto the clear signs of visible photo editing. And it could be funny to hear you explain away the colorful tubelike shapes visible on a number of photographs (including those from Apollo 12 - members.fortunecity.com...) and (members.fortunecity.com...) These shapes are also visible in astronaut training photographs - as the astronauts had to be prepared for what they were going to see, and there'll be a section soon on various official NASA PR 'astronaut training' pix, showing earth mockups in action of both the various shapes, and the chaotic jumble on the lunar floor - which were edited from the photographs.

Apps-wise, a neat little tool called FL Mask provides the bilinear facility, and then lview/adobe photoshop 7/focus magic/and the guy who brings pizza does the rest..

Are you here just to promote your site?

what makes you think they are trying to hide alien life? It could be pictures from earth

the reason why i didn't reply to everything lastnight was cause it was late, but i will try to do some of my explinations now. lets just focus on the negitives that NASA supposedly used.

firstly. i went and searched for a larger version of that photo you used. here it is. in colour even!

www.hq.nasa.gov... the image is 2205x2400 and it's a little over 1mb in size (just those those of you on slower connections know)

www.hq.nasa.gov... here is a smaller version of the same image.

so as i'm looking at it here and i'm not really seeing the hill as being a negitive placed into the image. what i'm seeing is a side of the hill facing the sun causing it to be very bright and since it's rased up and facing the sun directly (more or less) there arn't to many visable shadows. so that does make the surface look a bit odd i would agree with, but not fake.

lets take a look at some other Lunar hills though, why just use one as an example?

here's a shot i like. the hills don't look like negitives at all. plus the light isn't shining directly on them. it's shining more above and from behind.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

and another shot

www.hq.nasa.gov...

still don't see these negitives that they are using for these hills.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

ok well i think that's enough pics for now. so again. i'll say that i don't see anything that makes those hills fake.

i find those colourful "tube" things quite humourus. yes the moon is covered in colour tubes. NASA doesn't want you to know! for fear that people here on earth would panic because the killer alien confetti will attack us and kill us all!.... but seriously though. with all the filters and image adjustments you're doing to these photos it's sure to add some noise and affect the colour. take any image and do all that stuff to it. i'm sure you're bound to get some funny things happening. also note. you are editing a black and white photo in an RGB mode. that can add colour fragments to the image in bad ways. for example, your colour "tubes". cranking the saturation levels just makes it worse.

anyway. i'm done for now.

EDIT: oh yes almost forgot. here is a site that has tons of large apollo pics. www.apolloarchive.com...

here is a faq on how .jpg work www.faqs.org...

[Edited on 3-7-2003 by jra]

Kinda goes along with my thread: Mars Anomalies: Your Opinions

www.abovetopsecret.com...

regards
seekerof

Thanks alot for all the sites... I'll have to read into that one about the FOX broadcast thing...

Thanks jra, I was going to suggest that badastronomy.com site to Giants as well...we did land on the moon

Hello and welcome to ATS... Sorry it took so long for me to post but I have been getting error messages all day long.

Since I am sure that you haven't looked completely through ATS and probably do not know much about me, I'll tell you...In college I majored in photography and minored in graphic design...both of which are relevent to this discussion.
First off let me congratulate you on your site...it is obvious that you have spent many hours to display it the way it is...now on to my point:
You are saying that the image is a negative and you then deal with the mountain...both you and I know why you chose not to deal with the foreground; for everyone else the reason is that it will not fit his conspiracy...Why you may ask...I'll tell you, on a negative what is white is black and vice-versa..in the forground are shadows!!! for them to appear that way in a negative they would have to have been WHITE. If that is the case then there are bright lights coming from the ground in the shape of the objects that are beside them...WOW NASA should have shown those pictures...talk about interesting!!!
Next in the helmet you magically remove the "cloud"... that too impresses me, for I have never seen x-ray photo tools... I have a nice picture of my friend...unfortunately there was a building in the way, could you by chance remove it for me??
There are many other flaws that I could point out, but I think that I have made my point...Again nice website and very good job of manipulating photos to prove your point...next time don't try to show details that you know aren't there...TRUST ME, if when you do it you know it is a fake, others will be glad to show you why.

____________________________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS

This is an interesting thread on a multitude of levels. I'd like the links to the source NASA pictures, if possible. I'd like to try some of this myself. Thanks!

Horray!
Someone else stated that was BS before me, I was afraid I was becomming the only skeptic, here.

One time earlier in the boards history someone posted pics that they had taken that showed spacecraft around the moon (or something like that WOS will remember). It was rubbish, what they did was distort the picture so much that the noise left could be interpretated as anything they liked. - and thats what they did, blobs became aliens, and masses of dots were spaceships.

So here we have a pic of the track of a vehicle on the moon

Here is the pic twisted and poked unti you can say anything you like about it...


Suddenlyt the seemingly ordinay track is a "profusion of clearly vertical 'tube' or 'snakelike' objects".

MY GOODNESS!!!

You mean nasa disguised the tubes as tracks just to fool us??? Why didn't they just take a pic of ANOTHER place where there are NO TRACKS?

This is just another case of a boy with a toy, trying to find secret informaiton that just doesn't exist...

Originally posted by K_OS
Hello and welcome to ATS... Sorry it took so long for me to post but I have been getting error messages all day long.

Since I am sure that you haven't looked completely through ATS and probably do not know much about me, I'll tell you...In college I majored in photography and minored in graphic design...both of which are relevent to this discussion.
First off let me congratulate you on your site...it is obvious that you have spent many hours to display it the way it is...now on to my point:
You are saying that the image is a negative and you then deal with the mountain...both you and I know why you chose not to deal with the foreground; for everyone else the reason is that it will not fit his conspiracy...Why you may ask...I'll tell you, on a negative what is white is black and vice-versa..in the forground are shadows!!! for them to appear that way in a negative they would have to have been WHITE. If that is the case then there are bright lights coming from the ground in the shape of the objects that are beside them...WOW NASA should have shown those pictures...talk about interesting!!!
Next in the helmet you magically remove the "cloud"... that too impresses me, for I have never seen x-ray photo tools... I have a nice picture of my friend...unfortunately there was a building in the way, could you by chance remove it for me??
There are many other flaws that I could point out, but I think that I have made my point...Again nice website and very good job of manipulating photos to prove your point...next time don't try to show details that you know aren't there...TRUST ME, if when you do it you know it is a fake, others will be glad to show you why.

____________________________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS