John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

Okay, let's just skip to the chase:

The following pic was "SPLIT HSL", which removed the layers above it that were hiding the information beneath. It's the structure/city/craft/mining facitility in Tsiolkowsky Crater, far side of the moon.



Notice the items labelled "A" and "B", and remember those as we will come back to them shortly. First, however, is a description of how the SPLIT HSL process worked:

1. Downloaded the original picture (will show you that following this blurb about how to split hsl).
2. Open in graphics program.
3. I use Paintshop Pro 8.
4. Then cilck Colors, then from menu choose Split HSL
5. Turned up the light on some, that falls under
Colors/
Adjust/
Brightness-Contrast

Diagrams for how to do it on Paintshop Pro 8:

6. First select color from the top menu




7. Then select Split Channel and Split HSL



8. You can get the latest version of paintshop at Corel (Use to be Jasc, but Corel bought it). It's paint shop pro 11. They have a free demo you can try, fully functional for 30 days

9. It's "Tiny URL" because the other one is so long. You'll be redirected to the site
/gw39r

10. This process separates the layers into a hue layer, a saturation layer and a lightness layer. If the pic is black and white, and was never a color image, it will separate into the three layers, two of which have no data. However, if it was a color image from the outset, the color mask will peel away when the hue layer is split from the saturation layer and you will be able to see how the scene may have appeared to the camera's eye when it was originally taken, depending on the type and extent of tampering that was done with the image originally.

11. Some pixellation occurs as the image is being stripped down into its basic components. The extent of the pixellation is determined by the surrounding features. For example, an underlying object that appears to be pixellated but has something above it that isn't pixellated, means that the underlying object is not pixellated. It will only be pixellated to the degree the object above it is pixellated. Observe what I mean by viewing the pic I posted at the beginning of this post. The smoke/clouds/fog, floating around and over top of the underlying structures in the pic, are not pixellated, so the structures underneath these mists/clouds/etc, are not pixellizations. It's really there and it really appears to be a multi-layered construct of some sort. The variations in light and dark shades of gray, white and black are the result of the "hue" layer being removed. The original color can only be guessed at.

12. The final step of uncovering this anomalie is to convert it back into a positive image, as removing the hue layer converts it to negative.

Here is the original image:



It is pertinent to note here, that this image was taken from a frame of an Apollo video (that the astronauts took while circumnavigating the moon)

In the area labelled "B" on the first pic in this post, there are two separate streams of smoke coming up from what i'm assuming are smoke stacks:




In the area labelled "A" on the first pic in this post, notice the fine mist floating over the underlying structures. Although there is some pixellation, it's actually quite neglible, which means the pixellation in the underlying structure is also neglible.




I challenge anyone who honestly looks at these images, to still claim they are not unusual or simply pixellized images. They are repetitive tubular and geometric constructs, issuing steam/smoke and encircled by an embankment of clouds. THAT is what Tsiolkowsky really looks like, and not this:



[edit on 7-2-2007 by undo]

[edit on 8-2-2007 by undo]

Hell's bells, Undo!!! WOW and WOW again!! You mean to say those sharp geometrical shapes are actually structures??!!

I want to believe but heck, this is too far out. How do you convince me that this isn't distorted pixellation?

Can we get the same procedure going for the surface of Mars especially in the Cydonia region?

And my last question. How does one do it in Adobe Photoshop?? I've got ver 7.0, but don't have Paintshop pro and neither do I intend procuring one, free demo ver or not!!

But Ma'am, hats off to you!! A lady with beauty AND brains. Rare combo!

Cheers!! And keep up the good work!

I only have adobe photoshop elements. and i couldn't find channel splitting on it. the full size might have it. try a search for color channels?

Which section of the picture are you referring to, the lumpy bit in the middle, or the square bits in the dark area of the crater?

[edit on 8-2-2007 by Stoo]

This part of the image (Which I've taken the liberty to enlarge), is what I'm interested in. Fascinating, to say the least!!
(Thanks to undo for the expose!)




[edit on 8-2-2007 by mikesingh]

I've been messing around with the recent photos John posted. Is the saucer image the top of the pyramid? Just guessing. Also, there are some other interesting items that I've noted:

Originally posted by papajake
I've been messing around with the recent photos John posted. Is the saucer image the top of the pyramid? Just guessing.

No, papajake, the saucer is in the Apollo 8 photo AS8-12-2209 posted on page 91. Here it is again. The green circle on the right is the spaceport. The green circle on the left is the 'saucer shape' in the center of the city. Probably a restaurant. The 'pyramid' you point out is in AS08-12-2189 looking to the west of Hunboldt, well over a thousand miles to the southwest of 2209 or, 20 frames earlier.

Originally posted by undo
Okay, let's just skip to the chase:

The following pic was "SPLIT HSL", which removed the layers above it that were hiding the information beneath. It's the structure/city/craft/mining facitility in Tsiolkowsky Crater, far side of the moon.



Notice the items labelled "A" and "B", and remember those as we will come back to them shortly. First, however, is a description of how the SPLIT HSL process worked:

1. Downloaded the original picture (will show you that following this blurb about how to split hsl).
2. Open in graphics program.
3. I use Paintshop Pro 8.
4. Then cilck Colors, then from menu choose Split HSL
5. Turned up the light on some, that falls under
Colors/
Adjust/
Brightness-Contrast

Diagrams for how to do it on Paintshop Pro 8:

6. First select color from the top menu




7. Then select Split Channel and Split HSL



8. You can get the latest version of paintshop at Corel (Use to be Jasc, but Corel bought it). It's paint shop pro 11. They have a free demo you can try, fully functional for 30 days

9. It's "Tiny URL" because the other one is so long. You'll be redirected to the site
/gw39r

10. This process separates the layers into a hue layer, a saturation layer and a lightness layer. If the pic is black and white, and was never a color image, it will separate into the three layers, two of which have no data. However, if it was a color image from the outset, the color mask will peel away when the hue layer is split from the saturation layer and you will be able to see how the scene may have appeared to the camera's eye when it was originally taken, depending on the type and extent of tampering that was done with the image originally.

11. Some pixellation occurs as the image is being stripped down into its basic components. The extent of the pixellation is determined by the surrounding features. For example, an underlying object that appears to be pixellated but has something above it that isn't pixellated, means that the underlying object is not pixellated. It will only be pixellated to the degree the object above it is pixellated. Observe what I mean by viewing the pic I posted at the beginning of this post. The smoke/clouds/fog, floating around and over top of the underlying structures in the pic, are not pixellated, so the structures underneath these mists/clouds/etc, are not pixellizations. It's really there and it really appears to be a multi-layered construct of some sort. The variations in light and dark shades of gray, white and black are the result of the "hue" layer being removed. The original color can only be guessed at.

12. The final step of uncovering this anomalie is to convert it back into a positive image, as removing the hue layer converts it to negative.


I challenge anyone who honestly looks at these images, to still claim they are not unusual or simply pixellized images. They are repetitive tubular and geometric constructs, issuing steam/smoke and encircled by an embankment of clouds. THAT is what Tsiolkowsky

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thx for the tips. Some interesting processes you've got there.

I labelled where you can seperate it in photoshop.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by Freezer]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by mikesingh
I don't fully agree with you when you say that you doubt the Chinese will make it to the Moon. You think the US of A has the guts and resources to aggressively stop them? Nah!

Yah I think we just might... And IF as we claim there is already a thriving active operation up there... wouldn't be to hard to arrange an "accident" and have their ship crash...

ESA's Smart 1 made a nice little cloud of dust when it went down...

Well Japan is out of the game now...

Assosiated Press
Updated: 8:30 a.m. PT Jan 15, 2007

TOKYO - Japan's space agency has recommended scrapping its first moon mission after more than a decade of delays, a spokeswoman said Monday, in the latest blow to the country's beleaguered space program.

Source

Don't know about India yet...

As to China... if we staged a war with them in say 2008, that would give Bush a reason to stay in office...

Perhaps no one will ever go to the moon again.

If there is a Moon Base Conspiracy then there Is a UFO Conspiracy.

If UFOs can fly around the tether and an zoom by to the moon
then the UFOs made the bases without any one the wiser.

Defeat the UFO Conspiracy and what will that do?

Perhaps nothing.

Originally posted by mikesingh
This part of the image (Which I've taken the liberty to enlarge), is what I'm interested in. Fascinating, to say the least!!
(Thanks to undo for the expose!)

[edit on 8-2-2007 by mikesingh]

Awesome pic. That's what i'm talking about! Smoking gun or what?

Originally posted by undo
The following pic was "SPLIT HSL", which removed the layers above it that were hiding the information beneath.

I have kept myself silent about this, but has you bring this "technique" again as a way of uncovering the original information, I will try again to show you that you are making your chase in the wrong direction.

10. This process separates the layers into a hue layer, a saturation layer and a lightness layer. If the pic is black and white, and was never a color image, it will separate into the three layers, two of which have no data. However, if it was a color image from the outset, the color mask will peel away when the hue layer is split from the saturation layer and you will be able to see how the scene may have appeared to the camera's eye when it was originally taken, depending on the type and extent of tampering that was done with the image originally.

You are right in saying that a greyscale does not have any information on the Hue and Saturation channels (they are not layers), but you are wrong if you think that a greyscale version of a colour image has any information.

When you use a colour image and convert it to greyscale, the Hue is discarded, so there is nothing left in the Hue channel.

Split this image to HSL and see if you have anything in the Hue and Saturation channels.

The Saturation channel, as its name says, shows the saturation values of the pixels on the image, just that. The less saturated colours have darker values on the Saturation channel.

Split the following image to HSL and you will see that the centre of the image, the fully saturated red, appears as a white area because white(255) represents the highest value of saturation on the saturation channel. In the same way, the less saturated, or greyer, areas, appear darker in the Saturation channel because the saturation is lower.

11. Some pixellation occurs as the image is being stripped down into its basic components. The extent of the pixellation is determined by the surrounding features. For example, an underlying object that appears to be pixellated but has something above it that isn't pixellated, means that the underlying object is not pixellated. It will only be pixellated to the degree the object above it is pixellated. Observe what I mean by viewing the pic I posted at the beginning of this post. The smoke/clouds/fog, floating around and over top of the underlying structures in the pic, are not pixellated, so the structures underneath these mists/clouds/etc, are not pixellizations. It's really there and it really appears to be a multi-layered construct of some sort. The variations in light and dark shades of gray, white and black are the result of the "hue" layer being removed. The original color can only be guessed at.

What you call pixellation is the result of the different saturation levels of the different areas. In a high compressed JPG, for example, the resulting saturation channel is completely different from an uncompressed version because of way the JPG algorithm changes colours to achieve higher compression rates.

Split this image to HSL to see the difference.

Maybe this will show what I have trying to explain for some months.

This is an image I made in PaintShopPro.

This is its Hue channel

As expected, the tones in the Hue channel represent the colours of the original image.

This is saturation channel

As you can see, the difference in saturation of the colours in the original image appear in the Saturation channel. The more saturated colours have a corresponding higher value in the saturation channel.

Another thing that can be seen in this image is that the saturation appears regardless of the colour, some areas in the centre of the image have the same values as the ones on the outside. In the original images those areas are of different colours, but the colour saturation is the same and that is why the values in the saturation channel are the same.

This is the lightness channel

This channel shows the lightness (sometimes called Luminosity) and it is almost an exact copy of the greyscale version of the original image.


One last thing.

PaintShopPro also has a "Combine from HSL" option to create an image from the 3 channels.

Try to do a "Split to HSL" then some make changes in the saturation channel, maybe creating some "pixellation", for example, and see what you get when you join the channels back.

For example, if you flood-fill the saturation channel with white and use the "Combine from HSL" the you will get an image that is exactly like the original but the colours are fully saturated. If you flood-fill the saturation channel with black then the resulting image will not have any saturation, it will be a greyscale image.

As expected, values in between produce results between fully saturated and greyscale, that is what the Saturation channel does, it does not hide anything.

As a test, try to see what was on the original image on the right of my Christmas tree.

You can not, there is no way to recover deleted information.

Please do not waste your time with a technique that is meaningless.

Edit: I forgot the photo of the Christmas tree.

[edit on 8/2/2007 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by ArMaP
As a test, try to see what was on the original image on the right of my Christmas tree.



You can not, there is no way to recover deleted information.

Please do not waste your time with a technique that is meaningless.

Edit: I forgot the photo of the Christmas tree.

[edit on 8/2/2007 by ArMaP]

-------------------------------------

[edit on 8-2-2007 by Freezer]

Originally posted by ArMaP
I have kept myself silent about this,

And you have kept silent about the huge walking rock too and are back on the image processing gig. LOL Not surprising really... when faced with a real enigma to revert to old arguments rather than have to address the fact that 300 meter boulders wander across the Moon

But I suppose Christmas Trees in your living room are more relevant to the topic, huh? :bash:

Or the fact that there are cloudy days...

Just another typical morning on the Lunar Surface.... Sun coming up burning off the morning mist... I wonder what's hiding beneath those clouds...



AS8-13-2225


[edit on 8-2-2007 by zorgon]

Armap,

So do you suppose to say the clouds and buildings in the pic are not there? And that they are nothing more than pixellations? You sound like a poster boy for NASA

Originally posted by clearmind
..unless there is some form of cloud cover or un-naturely reflective material on the surface that NASA hasn't talked about yet.

Someone say "clouds"... Funny coincidence...

i think a good added feature would be to show ..images of know earth features..that, may help put into perspective what is being looked at.

Its an excellent idea and I have posted several comparisons so far. The problem is trying to find older lower quality images that match the quality of the moon shots. They exist.. like old U2 recon photos, but they are hard to find. A while back I posted an RAF image of Penemunde in Germany in WWII. It showed what the intelligence agents called a rocket and a trailer... and that image was much worse than any of the moon images...

Yet there was no comment...

I posted a string of lights and a dirt road comparing it to a far side similar appearing area... result... no comments...

Hmmmm So either these posts are missed because people don't read all the threads... or they are to flabbergasted to speak

i think we have a rare opportunity to view what may be something overlooked by the NASA censors...

in my view..these pics were suppose to stop at the 'oh golly..nice pictures of the moon' and NASA hoped, because of time constrants, that people would not question and look at these pics in minute detail with very new tech.....an oversite or...'whistle blower' for future generations?!?

Quite right there... agree 100%... they never figured we would have such high powered graphic editors or that we would care about old pictures. Now suddenly they lose photos etc from Apollo 11 and that other site that had the hidden images at 161.115.184.211... just removed all the cool pictures from Apollo as of Jan 16, 07

Dagnabbit!!

I didn't have time to download them all!! Hey Mike Singh maybe you did?

are there two space programs?..one for the public and one that is 'private'?! with all the evidence...WE MUST QUESTION IT

Seems very likely at this point... I just put together the Space Command pages on my website. All the information was gathered from public sources and there are no secrets to be revealed...

BUT what it does scream out is the size and scope of the buildup of the US Space Command. Read the mission statements, look at the names of the units, see where they are located... These files I have gathered are merely the tip of the iceberg. I know Mike and Undo will appreciate some of the unit patches...

landoflegends.us...

landoflegends.us...

One of the more fasinating outfits that caught my eye in context with our theory of space capabilities in the 60's is this...

20th Space Surveillance Squadron
Location: United States Air Force
Point of Interest : The Tower was Built in 1960 and Contains a Transmitter and Receiver that are Components of the Largest Phase Radar in the World. The Radar was Used to Track Soviet Targets, and Now Assists with the Space Shuttle. This Radar also Tracks the Equatorial Plain Orbit. It is Capable of Tracking a Target the Size of a 12 oz. Soft Drink Can 25,000 Miles Away in Space. The Total Value of the Radar Tower is in Excess of $800,000,000.

How much is that in 2007 Dollars?

Zorgon, there is alot of anomolies hidden by the cloud cover but there is alot of anomolies in the open areas in this pic. In the open space in the middle of pic is a round bulb looking face looking left with 2 eyes with exagerated eye brows a nose and mouth including a hat. To the lower bottom left of middle in pic you will see a perfect long inline design either heiroglyphs, pipes or structure. This was absolutely intelligent design and to the bottom right corner is a little girl statue and you can see her face as clear as day and her curly hair. To see the little girl cup your hand and use tunnel vision this will blow you away. Again this little girl statue seen in this pic is tiny tiny and I promise there is much more in this pic. Rik Riley



[edit on 8-2-2007 by rikriley]

Ok, I'm still having trouble with these "clouds" that everyone is seeing.

If these really exist, then why don't they cast a shadow like all other clouds on Earth do? If they obstruct light, then they MUST cast a shadow, right? To not cast a shadow would negate the presence of the clouds entirely. If someone can show me the shadows, I'll be more than happy to entertain the thought further.

TheBorg

Its Luminescence, the rocks are glowing as UV from Sun hit
them after a cold night.

You just have to think electrical or atomic response.

I'm not sure if the fluorescent light bulb is covered in High School
Physics but it was in undergrad work in science.

I am not surprised that such matters as Tesla's inventions
are over looked for more than twenty years.
Not the inventions but the reasoning and the doing mostly
due to lack of equipment. Oh why let the kids make neon
BAR signs, high voltage and dangerous and low life.

Its too close to making a neon engine thats why.

Who is to blame, Eisenhower, JFK, not Nixon, not Ford,
FBI, CIA , Patton, Von Braun ; is there a choice like Pokemon?

More dumbed out TV and education please.
Thats the ticket.

Originally posted by TheBorg
Ok, I'm still having trouble with these "clouds" that everyone is seeing.
If these really exist, then why don't they cast a shadow like all other clouds on Earth do?

Well first of all I see the shadows... the angle of light is coming from the lower left corner going approx upwards to the right corner...

BUT you forget that these would be very LOW clouds... almost like a mist hugging the ground, so I would only expect to see shadows on the edge furthest from the light and I see those shadows. I will put little arrows on them tomorrow when I have time

OH BTW I forgot to get back to you on your post a few pages back...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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

You were right...

About the seated Grey... I just didn't want to mention it at the time to throw off the rectangular match...

See? You are now gaining perception... be careful we may yet assimilate you




To TeslaandLyne:

Nope these are low hanging clouds

But I will deal with the fluorescence soon... I have LOTS of data on that one

[edit on 9-2-2007 by zorgon]

Here is a few for you specifically Rik...

The Reptilian...



The Naked Rock Climber...



And this one I named for Beth...

Enki VS Ea...