Moon Landing Photo

The moon landing footage that was stolen in the past couple years contained information that would have helped show those images.

There was a film shot by one of the astronauts that panned across the entired field of view. The camera rolled for about a minute, panned a little, filmed for a minute, and so on.

With those images you can stack them and bring out objects in them that are too dark to see in a single frame.

It's a combination of factors:
the image HAS jpeg compression artifacts all over, but it's NOT the only explanation for that specific image:
jpeg compression does NOT makes appear the lunar soil blue:
jpeg compression does NOT creates the dots that you can observe in both, background and module's shadow in the brightened/contrasted version
jpeg compression does NOT create a blue blur effect around the shapes, see module's silohuette
all this stuff cannot be explained just with jpeg compression: these are issues encountered during the scan from the roll Hasselblad, or even before, or even after: if you would enhance that specific scan print in lossless format, these three issues would be still visible, and there's a huge amount of similar issues in apollo images.

All the versions of this image should have been scanned from the same frame of the same roll, in different ways: and we don't know what type of scan has been made for the special edition (IF it is a scan), nor if it is a second, third, fourth generation copy, and HOW it has been created the copy, and we haven't anything with which to compare it from the same area.
So yes, jpeg compression artifacts, but NOT only.
www.hq.nasa.gov...


[edit on 5/8/2008 by internos]

reply to post by internos


JPEG compression in combination with natural light noise & bleed from two contrasting tones meeting on a straight edge explains EXACTLY what's happening there.

Take a photo of something reflecting light into darkness. You'll most likely get a light bleed into the dark area because the camera will pick up subtleties in light that a 72dpi computer monitor, a printer and your eyes won't show you without editing to lift the detail out of the darkness. If you have optics in your camera that are picking up light levels near or in the non-visible spectrum then you'll get even more bleeding.

Hi-rez scans from original film stock would show this bleed in a much more uniformed way. JPEGs and compressed versions will show the bleed broken up into shapes & tones according to the compression algorithms used in making the file.

People really think NASA would send it's astronaughts to a potentially dangerous area - of which they scoped out before the mission - broadcast it live to the world - and then cover it up and deny it by posting the photos publicly without completely removing all hints of it?

There's no way NASA wouldn't have known the area these guys were landing in and there's no way they would send a mission to these area's if they had any doubt on what was there because of the potential disasters and massive amounts of unnecessary cover-up to hide it - if they even could.

I'm sure NASA and SETI are controlled by stooges covering things up now to play a part in the 'official disclosure scam' while black budget programs have become the real space frontier (and disclosure will come from governments after weapon based systems are in place or ready to be promoted, but more Earth bound hostility needs to be promoted first thou) but i don't think these photos show anything out of the ordinary.

Here is the photo enhanced using adobe 4.0 Either we never went to the moon, or, there is some really strange things up there.

reply to post by internos


Dude, you are good...not because I understand what you are saying, but because I do not understand (at least technically) what you are saying, yet find myself giving it my all to follow the trail.

The bread crumbs you drop lead somewhere...just gotta figure out which path to take.

In this case, I'd say that if everthing we know about PS is true then,

It might be hard to find, but go buy 'Dark Mission' gentlemen (and/or ladies)
cali728

reply to post by chapter29


One would hope right? That's the same question that's making me a bigger and bigger skeptic as time goes on. Not as to the existance of, but as to whether or not we've actually been visited. Logic itself says there's other life out there SOMEWHERE, but there's a lot of other questions.


On Topic, I've always wondered why, if there are structures (and assumingly life) on the moon, and if there do seem to be so many buildings why don't we ever see lights from Earth during a New Moon? The moon DOES rotate after all (at least, that's what I feel like I remember...), I would think that at some point we would see lighting from these buildings if they're concentrated in such a way.

reply to post by internos


Is it possible anywhere to get a closer to original file of these pictures? Because while JPEG compression doesn't explain everything on there, it does explain some of it. So if we could get access to the original or even a raw scan in file, or some sort of other non compressed version, that would help, wouldn't it?

Also of course such a file would likely be larger and could be used to help explain more of these issues.

oh, um, all of that being said I should note that I do believe there are structures on the moon, but maybe the lighting is made in such a way that it stays internal. To fill only a building with light that doesn't escape would mean no windows and fiber optics, right?

The same type of 'compression' distortion that people think are objects in the distance can be seen in the shadow of the lander. Does that mean there are moon bases within the shadows on the moon?

Good find... it looks like the kind of artifacts the clone brush in PhotoShop leaves behind ...

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Here is the photo enhanced using adobe 4.0 Either we never went to the moon, or, there is some really strange things up there.

was thinking the same thing. look at all those buildings in the lander shadow. amazing!

everybody talking about artifacts ad alien city, what about it was filmed in the desert and a city was visible in the horizon and they brushed it? I firmly believe that we never went to the Moon so that could be it.

Originally posted by TheOracle
everybody talking about artifacts ad alien city, what about it was filmed in the desert and a city was visible in the horizon and they brushed it? I firmly believe that we never went to the Moon so that could be it.

that would be my second guess too.

www.youtube.com...

Alright the old lady is a graphic designer I will have her go over this tomorrow and dicide for myself so far I see buildings on the moon.

Originally posted by ExCloud
Alright the old lady is a graphic designer I will have her go over this tomorrow and dicide for myself so far I see buildings on the moon.

dont you also see them in the lander shadow?

There are at least two effects to take into account. First the window of the LEM is not perfectly transparent. There is some light bleeding (like halo) around bright objects, i.e. the ground. Second JPEG compression performs worst with very dark nuances of color and high contrasts. This is exactly what we have here. The blocky skyline on the horizon is not visible unless a contrast filter is applied. JPEG tries to preserve the most visible details, not the exact nuances of black. Trying to extract information from the sky by filtering a JPEG image is futile. There is no information there. Just look at the size of the file. 49 KB. Far too small.

For everyone saying its JPEG compression how come the main black bit of the picture doesnt have the pixelation aswell? Surely it would be there aswell? To me that has to have been brushed out. Its too solid!

I'm going to see if I can find a similar image from earth with a dark horizon and see if the pixelation shows up the same...

The anniversary version showing the formations has been heavily edited, I've been toying with the full res version I pulled from here.

history.nasa.gov...

I have been able to recreate formations but not to the extent of the OPs version although I really haven't been trying all that hard either.

At any rate take the high res version i posted the link to, and make a couple copy layers set them to overlay. You'll notice the thickness of the landers shadow will come close too if not match the OP image.

Then toy around with the overlays in Image/Adjustments/Levels, and you can get the image colors to a close match. (I have only been able to get an exact match using a gradient overlay)

Now heres where I have issues, once i get a close match to color and definition, I take the image over to the OP image as a layer and set it to overlay only to see the shape does not match. What I mean by that is they aren't the same picture or somehow somewhere something got skewed. A simple scale will not match up nor rotating with scale, I had to actually distort by pulling corners out at different distances to get a match. (I'm guessing its a picture of a picture or a crappy scan.)

That OP image has been butchered to death by resizing, layers added and possible color enhancements, as well as JPEG compression.

reply to post by TheOracle


I personally would not believe that there is alien cities and artifacts or even believe that alien life exists unless we have strong evidence.
#1 Egyptian pyramids
#2 Belief in gods and angels (which were probably aliens)
#3 PICTURES OF PYRAMIDS ON MARS AND MOON.
#4 Millions of people who have seen and filmed ufos including astronauts,military personnel and scientists.
#5 I saw ufos with my own two.