John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

Originally posted by undo
Easier for you but not necessarily for newbies. They'd see the images in a stack and think first, second and third (or at least, that's my theory lol) . Adding concepts and words like hue, saturation and lightness might be a bit confusing initially.

Well, its called "split to HSL", so I think calling the resulting images (they are not layers) "Hue", "Saturation" and "Lightness" its only natural.

But maybe your version of PaintShopPro shows things in a different way.

This is what I get when I do a "split to HSL", the original image and 3 images, one for each channel.

On the Split HSL, it looks like a bunch of buildings, a factory, pipes and other structures. It may also have a ship/satellite, or whatever else there, but those are not readily seen in the image. The factory, as i'm caling it, is the pretty clear, although i have no guarantee it's a factory, it sure looks like something with two smoke stacks coming up from it.

Well, it may look like a bunch of buildings, but what it shows in that channel (if I got it right its the Saturation channel) is the percentage of colour applied. The black areas do not have any tint applied, the white areas are 100% of that colour.

The colour information is on the "Hue" channel. With that frame from the video zorgon posted, for example, if you choose with the eyedropper a pixel from the bottom left area of the "hue" image you will get a value around "90". If you go to the original image and choose the same pixel with the eyedropper it will pick up a shade of green that, if you click in the colour chooser, you can see its Hue value is "90".

ArMap, that's the lst layer, the grey scale layer. Show me the layer that's right behind it and convert it back to positive since it will be negative to begin with. you aren't looking at the right layer. if i didn't think better of you, i'd almost be inclined to believe you were deliberately lying and hiding the evidence since you insisted on showing only the first layer of the split )

nnelsosj,

I realize this doesn't seem to be on topic, but in its own way, it is. I'm establishing that the images have been modified to hide evidence of sentient activity on the moon. John Lear has stated from the outset that there is mining going on, on the moon. Some of the evidence can be seen and some is apparently covered up. Since the copernicus images were in black and white, the only way to tell if they've been modified is really close examination, which is not that easy to do with an image the size of the copernicus images.

However, the color images of the moon can be split into layers and if there is any modification, the masked modification can be seen in the split in several cases. The Tsiolkowsky Crater frame from the apollo movie shows an unexpected layer behind it, featuring all kinds of interesting anomalies. So although it may not actually be legit, I personally believe it's depicting a structure of some kind in Tsiolkowsky Crater.

Ok, here is what I get when I split to HSL and invert the Saturation channel.

You say that the second (the Saturation) image, after inverting its colours, is the original image and the third (the Hue) is the mask?


Now, have you tried the "Combine from HSL"? If you do you can see the result of changing one or more of those images (not layers).

If, for example, you delete all the information from the Hue channel, making it a black image, when you use the "Combine from HSL" you will get a red version of the original image. Do you know why? Because black has a value of zero and the Hue that has that value is Red. Changing a pixel in the Hue channel to zero changes that pixel in the final image to Red. You can use the eyedropper in any pixel of that red version of the image and you will see that all colours have a Hue of zero. If you change the Hue image to a 50% grey and combine all the channels back you will get a blue version of the original image. As in the previous case, any pixel that you choose will have a value of 128, because that was the information from the Hue channel (but I get some pixels with 129). If you change the Hue image to white then you will get another red version of the original because the HSL colour space uses a 360º representation of the colour, so 0 and 255 (black and white) represent 0º and 359º respectively.
The Hue channel its not like a mask that you apply to cover things on the final image, its a way of showing what colour the final image will have on that point. If it was a mask, using a completely black (or white) Hue image when combining from HSL it would block all the image behind.

Now try the same for the Saturation Channel. Because this channel shows the saturation of the Hue from the Hue channel, changing the values on this channel changes the saturation of the colour in the final image but does not change the colour or the brightness of that colour. Changing the Saturations channel to black (0) will give a final image, after combining from HSL and using the respective images, that has no saturation at all, i.e. a greyscale version of the original image. All pixels will have a zero saturation and a zero hue because without saturation there is no colour, so the hue information is discarded. Now try to change the saturation channel to a 50% grey and, after combining from HSL, you will get an image where all pixels have a 128 value on the saturation, regardless of their colour (again I get some pixels with 129 instead). Now change the saturation image to white and the combination of all 3 channels will give you an image fully saturated, where all pixels have a saturation level of 255, regardless of their colour.
Once more, if that was the negative of the original image, recombining the three images from the H, S and L channels when using a completely black image should give a final image with nothing in it and not a greyscale version of the original.

Now the Lightness channel. Changing its colour to a complete black, combining the three channels from HSL into a new image will give an image without any brightness, a black image where all pixels are completely black, with a zero lightness. Changing the lightness image to a 50% grey and recombining the images from HSL will give an image that has a medium brightness. Some pixels are a bright green, but if you see the HSL values of those pixels you will see that the lightness is 128, a 50% lightness that comes from the 50% grey of the lightness channel. Changing the lightness image to white will give an image where all pixels have a full brightness, a white image.

That is why I think that splitting an image in its Hue, Saturation and Lightness values is not a better way of finding hidden information that splitting to RGB or CMYK, even if that image had 20 different layers masking the original information, after the image is saved as a JPG or PNG that information is lost, that is why PaintShopPro says:

Because of the limitations of the specified file format (and possibly the save options you've selected), the saved file will be limited to a merged image. would you like to continue?

Now don't take this as an attack against your work, I am only trying to show you why I think (I am not 100% sure if I am right about this, I am only a programmer, not a specialist in computer graphics) that you are wasting your time with a tool that does not give the results you think it gives.

ArMap,

Show me the Saturation layer, converted from negative to positive, in the same size as you posted the Lightness layer.

Recombining the mask layer (layer 3 or the hue layer) with the saturation layer does not complete the picture back to layer 1/lightness layer or the color original because they applied a texture to the mask which is not visible on the split except on the lightness layer (the first split layer, a greyscale of the original color). as soon as the paint over mask for the background is removed, the texture goes with it, but is not represented in layers 2 or 3 (saturation and hue). this may be because texture is added to the image differently.

also, if you consider the age of the image and calculate the various timeframes and the related techniques for masking represented during those timeframes, we may be only seeing the developer solution on layer 3 (hue layer), which would've been painted directly on the original negative of the frame. i don't know, however, if that would show up, even in an HSL split. also how texture was added to images would've changed over the years and since we don't know when the frames were modified to their most current condition, it's hard to tell what technique was originally used or if the software taking the images auto-applied the textures

[edit on 7-1-2007 by undo]

Here it is.

If you have any question just ask, but I can only answer tomorrow.

Okay, looking at the saturation layer image, several things are indicated:

1) the saturation layer is a great deal different than the lightness layer or the original color.
- A) The size of the structure has increased several fold in the saturation layer.
- B) The size of the white spot, indicated in the color version as a small ship looking thing, has now become a big fluffy cloud, also several times larger, floating over a multi-layered something or other.
- C) The outer edges of the crater are completely different as is the floor of the crater, which is populated by clouds, smoke and things that look like pipes and engines.
- D) All of this is overshadowed by clouds and smoke, of varying levels of mistiness, from translucent to opaque and everything inbetween. if the underlying image (below the clouds/smoke) is just pixellated, the clouds and smoke would be represented as white boxes.
- E) The clouds in the center of the image are indeed in the image as they are casting shadows on the objects below.

Due to the difference between lightness layer and saturation layer, i'm going to assume the original image was taken much closer to the crater (a tighter shot) than the finalized color frame indicated, as the walls of the crater are not even visible in the saturation layer. instead, all we're seeing is clouds surrounding the facility, which may or may not have been there originally. that's the part that we can't ascertain without having access to the original negative or the decoding softwre for the algorithm that created the mask.




[edit on 7-1-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
nnelsosj,

I realize this doesn't seem to be on topic, but in its own way, it is. I'm establishing that the images have been modified to hide evidence of sentient activity on the moon. John Lear has stated from the outset that there is mining going on, on the moon. Some of the evidence can be seen and some is apparently covered up. Since the copernicus images were in black and white, the only way to tell if they've been modified is really close examination, which is not that easy to do with an image the size of the copernicus images.

However, the color images of the moon can be split into layers and if there is any modification, the masked modification can be seen in the split in several cases. The Tsiolkowsky Crater frame from the apollo movie shows an unexpected layer behind it, featuring all kinds of interesting anomalies. So although it may not actually be legit, I personally believe it's depicting a structure of some kind in Tsiolkowsky Crater.

I still dont see anything in those pictures you've posted here. However, I will agree that NASA edits their photos to hide evidence of Alien activity.

I forget the guy's name, but he hacked into NASA computers and found unedited photos showing proof of UFO's. Plus a woman who worked in NASA stated to the Disclosure Project that she worked in the infamous building where editing took place.

Here's an excerpt from it. Notice the fine mist of clouds across the bottom and along the left side. Can't have pixellation and fine cloud rendering in the same frame. if the structure is just a pixellation of natural terrain, the clouds and mist would've pixellated as well.

Originally posted by StellarX
Those who suggest that one has to 'believe' in anomalies to see them should remember that the inverse is as just about as true; if you do not your subconscious mind will take the hint and make sure your information feed wont enable much else. We do not perceive anything 'as it is' ( whatever it may be in a 'objective reality'- good luck- not tainted by perception or what our limited senses enables for us) but really as we are and those who do not understand that may claim ( consciously anyways) that they are attempting a objective evaluation without having the subconscious predisposition to manage such.

The subconscious mind is a million times 'stronger' than the conscious mind ( Quoting Dr Bruce Lipton) and that is why lay people throughout history has so frequently been able to see what trained 'experts' simple can not( really will not as their powerful subconscious mind overpowers whatever objectivity they might consciously aspire to ) by looking at the very same reality. Formal schooling is but one of the processes by which our own very own minds ( and the most dangerous part of it) are turned against us by those who have always attempted to control us.

In closing the more you 'want' or 'need' to believe something the less trust you should put in what your senses 'tells you' and the more you should rely on what careful and extensive research reveals to you. If you have a vested subconcious interest in believing one thing over another ( the 'it just can't be' thinking) you must first establish why and address that before bothering with evidence as while the stronger part of your mind is actively sabotaging your attempted objective evaluation you don't stand much chance; it's that powerful a thing.

Stellar

I think many will be well served by reading the above post by Stellar again.

Originally posted by undo
What is this Admriker444?




See the trail of smoke? Think that's a Volcano, perched on top of a tower? And what's that toothed wheel next to it? A rock with precisely spread gaps, and teeth of regular size, around a circle, standing on edge next to a tower?

Source:
Copernicus1-full.gif
thestargates.com...

For me, that picture is the best. Absolutelly.

Especially the colorized version. But the original its just as amazing as the colorized one.

I can see a building. A square building...and what seems to be a road. And...smoke on top of the building?

The building is SQUARE. Period. Its a square shape. Undeniable.

Im not into seeing strange figures in pics, at all. But that image is just fascinating.

For me, i repeat, the best pic of ALL.

If it can be proved that the ORIGINAL PICS are 100% GENUINE...there is nothing else to say.

Sorry for my english.

[edit on 8-1-2007 by Orion437]

[edit on 8-1-2007 by Orion437]

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
I think many will be well served by reading the above post by Stellar again.

Yes quite true... and it does apply equally to both sides of the coin.

But there is also human nature to consider...

That "Dag Nab It !! I'm right and I'm gonna make you believe me!" need that many people have. No matter how hard we try, sometime that just gets the better of us. So page after page of the same point bantered back and forth can cloud the issue.

It also complete buries the research... a few pages back after the thread was closed over the John Lear issue, Zarniwoop and I both tried to post images for discussion. I hand picked some of the better clips from JL's moon picture of Copernicus... ones that MOST people can see there is at least something there that isn't right, yet no comments on those at all...

Perhaps the pictures no longer have interest...

As to the video... that was sent to me... I have not found it anywhere else on the web... [that doesn't mean its not out there, just that I haven't seen it anywhere else] The Apollo astronaut is obviously focusing in on it... background voices on the other channel express surprise at one point enough to knock the narrator off his stride.

Is it tampered with? I do not know... I however suspect its the real deal, as it confirms other data I have and some of which I have already shown...

Is the "mask theory" valid in this case? I have no idea,

The picture was taken from a screen shot of a video on my screen. which was originally a clip from a data transmission from the moon, and not a film. How many times has it been copied from the original, and who has had it until I got a copy, is anyones guess. Without the original, its almost impossible to tell...

However with all the "insiders" coming forward like in the disclosure project and others, it is likely that every now and then a small piece of evidence leaks out. I believe its possible that this film is one such piece.
The photos John Lear found in that old book were printed before NASA concerned themselves with editing evry minute detail.

The exercise here should NOT be are the anomalies in those images valid, [and this applies ESPECIALLY to the Copernicus pictures that John originally posted] The exercise SHOULD BE is there a difference between the old copies and the new ones that are available on the internet galleries.

If an anomaly exists in the old copies and does not in the ones on the public galleries, it would seem logical that you have evidence of tampering.

Once you have that evidence... the next step is.. WHAT are they covering and WHY

Undo has shown me several CLEAR samples of such tampering, like the "monkey" overlay. Some of the other masking stuff is almost impossible for the ordinary person to see, much less understand, so perhaps the best course of action is to create a thread and see if we can find other graphics experts to help everyone understand the masking and layering process.

And then we need side by side comparison between the old image and the public image to show the difference.



I do not know without having the original

Originally posted by zorgon
Undo has shown me several CLEAR samples of such tampering, like the "monkey" overlay. Some of the other masking stuff is almost impossible for the ordinary person to see, much less understand, so perhaps the best course of action is to create a thread and see if we can find other graphics experts to help everyone understand the masking and layering process.

I thought the same myself yesterday, I think this has reached a point where the discussion of the techniques used to spot the anomalies is flooding the real thread, and I am one those who do the flooding.

If anyone wants to create a new thread to discuss this then just point me to it, I will gladly take my attempts to show what I think there.

Originally posted by Orion437
Copernicus1-full.gif
thestargates.com...
For me, that picture is the best. Absolutely.
Especially the colorized version. But the original its just as amazing as the colorized one.

Thank you for noticing Orion! Yes it is one of the best ones... and the colorization definitely helps highlight the area...



BUT whats more important is that we have isolated THIS one on Copernicus # 5 as well, which is the aerial view of the same area. Its definitely square, with a square dark hole in the center in both images




[PS I will not get into orientation arguments. Its been done already and posted on my site with all the grid references attached]

[edit on 8-1-2007 by zorgon]

another aristarchus sphinx



from this unmasked apollo photo
thestargates.com...

uncolored, unmasked (contrasted and lightened so you can see the sphinx)
thestargates.com...

the original photo
thestargates.com...

Good work again Undo as most of us know the moon is loaded with statues and monuments. This is only the beginning and there will be more breakthroughs and discoveries to come on our Earth's Moon. So everyone stay tuned to this thread for you will be in for a treat. Rik Riley

Originally posted by zorgon
BUT whats more important is that we have isolated THIS one on Copernicus # 5 as well, which is the aerial view of the same area. Its definitely square, with a square dark hole in the center in both images

With what appears to be a grey sitting staring at it. Anyone else see what appears to be a humanoid sitting there looking straight at that dark square? Maybe I'm the one seeing things now, I dunno. It sure does look goofy to me too.

Good find. Now I'm thinking again...

TheBorg

RikRiley,

Really? This is the first time i've seen (well since i started working on the project i've seen other sphinx type things) statues on the moon or what looked like sphinx type statues. there appears to be a dragon or griffin, maybe even a ram (like the famous ram in a thicket artwork from ur) breathing fire right next to the sphinx. or at least, thats the appearance. it could be fire from forging. could be the sphinx is not a sphinx, rather a rider of the thing next to it, whatever it is. the picture is kinda jumbled up.


edit: no, on further inspection the sphinx has the same kind of feet as the one by the great pyramid. i need to correct that on the colorization. it takes awhile sometimes to realize what you're seeing. the sphinx and the dragon/griffin thing next to it, are part of long anomalie that i found in the clementine color photos. it's here:
www.thestargates.com...
it's somewhat of an optical illusion. the spiral shape, reminiscent of a double helix, appears like the tail of a dragon winding around a central column in some other pics of the area.


[edit on 9-1-2007 by undo]

No, i don't think so. It's like cloud dreams for ill informed adults. If all you people have such active imaginations what do you make of this?

images.google.com.au...://www.c-wilkie.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/jokes/images/rock_cock.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.c-wilkie.pwp.bluey onder.co.uk/jokes/pages/rock_cock.html&h=432&w=279&sz=18&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=p9jXcpt5almCiM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=81&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcock%2Brock%26svnum%3 D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-USfficial%26sa%3DG


It was taken from 20 Metres away with a conventional camera. What is it? It reminds me of something out of ancient history but i just can't put my fingers on what just now...........

What do you think John, Alien Hormone Factory?............LOLLLOLLOLOL