Do these manipulated Apollo images hide an unknown civilization?

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Pimander

 

From what I have seen, the ones that look closer to the originals are here.

They are also the highest resolution photos available.

Also ,we have these,hidden in my basement.

www.lpi.usra.edu...
I can locate some of the pictures mentioned.

reply to post by Perfectenemy

You´re kidding right? You ignore everything that´s presented to you as evidence and still demand proof. That´s just stupid. If you are looking for the truth go look for yourself but if you question everything you see what´s the point. Some people are just......

No. Stupidity is taking a complete stranger at their word. There was ZERO proof in that video. None. At All. It's not up to me to "test it for myself" because I, as a true skeptic, don't believe what you tell me until you prove it. If you don't care that I don't believe you, then move on, and contain your urges to post inane childish insults.

He took his own images and showed us what he wanted.

Many people in this thread have called for a control experiment, but neither the OP, nor people like yourself, want to provide real proof.

When someone gets violent at requests for proof, you know they're full of crap

and the fact that so many users of this "deny ignorance" site have blindly starred and praised this post, without once questioning its credibility, really says a lot about the overall population of this site.

Just like any other group of people, only a few among the herd that are really worth your time.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by wavemaker

 

You cannot increase the resolution of a digital image without fabricating digital or mathematical estimation. Take a low resolution photo of a tree and ask any digital resolution (fantasy) software to show you the leaves on that tree.
It simply wont and nothing does that without 'MAKING STUFF UP' that isn't from the photo.

NASA photos were on film, they were developed by independent labs and printed various ways, some of those prints were later scanned digitally and what you see are cleaning smudge marks from poor lab processing.

Do a little research, unicorns simply don't exist no matter how hard you dream.

edit on 26-10-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)

I'm not sure why you are lecturing me about that. I just mentioned what software was being used for those who wanted to know what software was being used.

Awesome thread OP just when I thought things were getting a little stale over here with "why I do/dont believe in the aliens" threads- this shook me up a bit.

Please if you have the time make more of these there are probably dozens of them.

Originally posted by davethebear
Brilliant thread, thank you...very interesting......

I was thinking about something else while watching the video.....This is not NASA or space related, but even photographs that were taken during the time when Kennedy was assassinated, would this kind of technology around photo's etc be able to see more detail around the grassy knoll area........Just a thought...If this has been already mentioned on this thread, please accept my apols...........Obviously I am not much of a technology expert and this may have been used before on Kennedy photo's......Just saying................

Great post. I guess technology does not exist to accurately analyze photos, according to the debunkers in this thread.

"Oh I know what you did. You did this and this, and forgot about this..."

What I was actually thinking about today... opening up this thread and reading, "what trouble would the OP go through to photoshop the anomalies versus using his program to discover the anomalies?" What would be more time consuming to produce?

Instead, the debunking went a different route. The main argument was, "You idiot! You don't realize the program you're using automatically distorts the picture! I'm glad science doesn't use your method of research!"

The photo was originally taken by the Cassini orbiter as it made a flyby of Jupiter and took several photographs of the planet's moon Titan, which has long been spoken of as one of the potential planets to contain life and even vast oceans of liquid water since late last year. But when youtube users turned up the contrast on the image making it brighter, an obvious series of brush strokes were clearly made visible surrounding the second half of the moon.

So what is the cause of this mysterious photographic anomaly? As NASA scrambles to avoid another controversy brought about by conspiracy theory, several others are stepping forward demanding an explanation. Enter Emily Lackdawalla, who claims she made the touch up because of the way NASA's Cassini space probe takes photos. After the image was taken, she says one would have looked alright to observers but not the others. And as such photoshop was employed to exact the change that would allow both Titan and Jupiter to appear in perfect clarity to the public. But is this a sufficient explanation?

First, let's take a look at the image itself. By simply reversing the image or raising the brightness, it is immediately apparent that something strange is going on. But is the type of brush stroke being used one that would suggest the blotting out of a distant alien craft?

NASA has admitted to using photoshop and other programs like it that edit images in order to make those images look clearer, but some ex NASA workers have also come forward claiming photo editing is used to cover up an alien presence around the planet. Ms. Donna Hare, in conjunction with the Disclosure Project led by Stephen Greer outlined an encounter she had while working with NASA where she was shown slides that suggested an extraterrestrial presence had been built on the Lunar surface and Mars. Hare went on to say that NASA conducted these types of coverups in order to stop the public from knowing about the presence of alien craft in our solar system.

But what about the official explanation by Emily Lackdawalla? While it certainly doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility to suggest a cover-up of sorts to regulate sensitive material in space for any number of reasons (not simply an alien presence) the haphazard and rushed method used to photoshop the entire edge of a planet away could have certainly been nothing more than NASA scientists attempting to get their money's worth of Jupiter and Titan. Had there been anything truly sensitive in the photo, it stands to reason that it may not have even been released in the first place. Certainly one photo among millions would not have been missed. And if a massive coverup were involved, it may have enjoyed more attention to detail.

www.unexplainable.net...

This phenomena is nothing new. It is actually more entertaining watching the ∩iggers on this forum attempt to perpetuate ignorance. Really, the majority of the people who mater to the advancement of this race believe in sentient life outside of the human race.

I'll side with scientists. The OP tout's a fundamental belief which the intelligent subscribe to. Everything else is simply rhetoric.

Originally posted by templar knight
Top notch thread both from the Op and the debunkers - this is what ATS is all about.

While there was photo manipulation in the 1960s and 1970s, even from NASA - at some point in time, the public
technology would overtake private technology from yesteryear.

Yes, another great point. I would like the OP to at least take a picture of his software or make a youtube video of what he is using.

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
The original "blue man" photo appears to be an old photo retouching. Whatever ink the artist used, it's giving out with old age...I've had this happen to myself as well. Most white inks are not lightfast or even archival quality. They yellow and get translucent over time. Whatever was painted over is just coming back through. Also the usage tape to blot areas out is well used technique when commercial art is used and not computers. Seems like a good examination on the video.

This too. I highly doubt there are artists who understand things like the quote above who are "debunking this thread".

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Jason88

 

So, how do artifacts explain the stairs on the hill picture? ie: not a straight line.

You need to follow the entire thread.

Notice how the pixilation turns straight diagonal lines into "staircases." If a cheap program can do this, imagine what an expensive program can do in the right hands!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is a perfect example with ATS lots of stars on that post, and lots of assumptions!

"Imagine what he can do! It must be false! I imagined it!"

Originally posted by PrimePorkchop
No. Stupidity is taking a complete stranger at their word. There was ZERO proof in that video. None. At All. It's not up to me to "test it for myself" because I, as a true skeptic, don't believe what you tell me until you prove it.

Being proven to is a two way street.

Effective Skepticism (there is no such thing as "true" skepticism) is nothing like what you are doing. You are being an armchair or back seat skeptic. The stuff I'm going to include below is part of being an effective skeptic.

It requires listening and being open and willing to look at something the way the person trying to prove it to you does. If this doesn't interest you or you don't have time to test for yourself, then don't call yourself a skeptic. You are simply being a watcher waiting for someone you trust to tell you it's ok to believe something. And there is nothing wrong with that. I am happy to be a watcher and wait for someone else to tell me what's what with migration patterns of Monarch Butterflies (fascinating, complex, and I currently believe the scientific consensus despite knowing it's still probably wrong... because I just don't have the time or desire to test it myself).

Also, a true skeptic is skeptical of what they think they know most of all.

All of that said: OP Here are two images to help with the guy reflected in the visor questions. Especially in regards to "holding" the camera and what is expected to be seen.




That said... I don't know what's up with the Moon Landings, but I know the government well enough to know there is no way we know everything about the mission.

Namaste!

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
Okay, I'm trying to figure out how the OP got this (screen capture from vid at 720p):

I used the 8mb original NASA photo found here: grin.hq.nasa.gov...

Zooming into Armstrong's reflection in the visor gave me a very blocky astronaut:

So how did the OP get Armstrong's body smooth? Well I resized the original image up by about 30 times and got this:

Ok, the body is now smooth but right away you can see a yellow-brown box around him. As one poster mentioned earlier with jpgs, the graphic software estimates the color of the surrounding pixels.

This is clearer if I use negative images:

Before resizing:

No really noticeable "box" around the astronaut.

After resizing, noticeable box:

I will leave the wayward member of the Blue Man Group to others.

edit on 26-10-2011 by Nicolas Flamel because: (no reason given)

He did it because he used some AMS software that microbiologist use that can't be found on Google.

reply to post by 1967sander


Super job....look forward to participating soon as time permits.

SnF.

Note: don't be discouraged by the mysterious critics who will pop up to be critical of your contribution..look at their posting stats..they will have stars but no flags.This tells me they don't post threads as that is not their job....The stars are generated as a result of their attacks on any threatening post that makes the man appear in a negative light...all about Perception..

AMS is the name given to the algorithm used by microbiologists to identify the shape and density of the liver using slices from CT scans.

Find the paper on the subject matter right here...

I only had to do one google search to find the info on it... not sure what everyone else was typing in?

Of course I had to search on "auto multi-layer segmentation"... as AMS on its own would have more likely referenced a not so popular but widely used audio/video codec and probably a host of other matching acronyms.

Whilst I dont really get too into these "photo manipulation" threads... as its been widely known that these images were tweaked to some extend to give us the viewer the best appearance possible... I do find a couple of the points raised quite interesting indeed.

I would like to get my hands on the software used but alas.. even with my net skills its impossible to source a copy... unless of course I hit someone up at the local hospital or research centre (not gonna happen).

If anyone finds a link to said AMS software however.. I would be very keen to see how its doing what its doing and report back to the group my findings.

I have played around with many software which (seemingly.. but only seemingly) do a similar thing and seen similar results come from nothing... however.. until I know exactly how this algorithm is working I will reserve judgment on the OP.

Cheers though... this one kinda tickled the old nipples ;b

w3nd1g0

I like the comments where the guy says we could send astronauts to the moon, but we couldn't edit pictures. Now that's an argument....

Anything for a paycheck...

S&F thank you for this , it makes you really wonder is all of American history just a set up and a lie and who or what can keep us all from knowing the real truth for so long ...I hope one day we find out the truth

Originally posted by essanance
S&F thank you for this , it makes you really wonder is all of American history just a set up and a lie and who or what can keep us all from knowing the real truth for so long ...I hope one day we find out the truth

What's the longest running joke in History?

History.



Namaste!

reply to post by 1967sander


I work for a visual fx company in the states and theres not one piece of this video that I though was proof of a staircase, structure or outline of anything. All I saw were artifacts caused by jpeg compression etc. These are not hdr images and if you add any kind of color correction to these jpegs you might even be able to see santa claus if you look close enough. I was hoping to actually see evidence of a paint out clone age of an area. All I saw were staircases built out of image compression. Totally fake. Doesn't prove anything at all. Thanks for wasting my time.

Originally posted by lizardman
reply to post by 1967sander

 

I work for a visual fx company in the states and theres not one piece of this video that I though was proof of a staircase, structure or outline of anything. All I saw were artifacts caused by jpeg compression etc. These are not hdr images and if you add any kind of color correction to these jpegs you might even be able to see santa claus if you look close enough. I was hoping to actually see evidence of a paint out clone age of an area. All I saw were staircases built out of image compression. Totally fake. Doesn't prove anything at all. Thanks for wasting my time.

Yup.. I quite agree.. those stairs are clearly made from compression. I would still like to get my hands on the algorithm just to see exactly what its doing.. but I do think those stairs were generated by standard photoshop style plugins... weather the OP says so or not.

reply to post by w3nd1g0


I wanted to see for myself if I could see anything in the Apollo Images. I did some high contrasting and thought a few images extremely interesting. By the way, I don't think this is a waste of anyone's time. Nothing malicious about this post. Just a purely inquisitive questioning of what may or may not be all that meets the eye. For heaven's sake this IS a conspiracy site. SOME people are just rude and honestly wanting to say something nasty. Go back to grade school if you want to pick on someone to try and look COOL lol. TSK tsk. Anyway, interesting find whether it be simple compression left overs or not. Too bad I can't simply upload my pics from computer and have to have a Url to upload the images. grrrr. Text