Do these manipulated Apollo images hide an unknown civilization?

Stop flagging and delete this lol..... the guy in the video doesn't even know what hes talking about.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by jazzguy

 

"Shadow on ceiling"??

Next you'll find one with "Ceiling Cat" poking his head out wearing a grin.

Here, just one source of the actual image, from Apollo 17. Knock yourselves out, and find any *manipulations* besides the junk noise added by over-processing software:

AS17-151-23201


Might want to find a way to explain how each frame from the three 16-mm film DACs were "manipulated to hide" something too.

And, the live TV video as well. Many, many hours of it.

Good luck.

Well then I guess the Death Star from Star Wars must be real too.

I can't read anymore comments from people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about. I don't believe in aliens visiting earth, but this user's video has the answers to some of the questions being asked. First, the video does show other pictures that have not been manipulated, as well as areas of manipulated photos that have not been manipulated.

And Nasa didn't need nonexistent computers to fake anything. Photo manipulation is as old as photography itself. I like the Wiki example of Stalin's photo manipulation, which is pretty impressive, especially considering it was done in the 20's!!!

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


I think you would like to believe it as do I. I love the fact that this website shows us things that the average news does not. There are many story's on ATS that are very interesting and open our eyes to facts and history that change the way we think. I watched the video till the end as I was waiting for the smoking gun. Image manipulation wasnt very sophisticated back then. It is now. But this video to me personally although its a great attempt at showcasing image enhancing tools. It only showed me that is can enhance jpeg artifacts to a level of disbelief. As soon as the presenter said that the artifacts from compression were staircases. The story was bogus to me. Good luck to all...

Originally posted by lithegrace
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

Ahhhh we have someone that has some real evidence. Please find a way to post your important enhancements. It might just change the world.

Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Swills

 

He used some bad ass software, AMS auto multi layer segmentation software, on these photos, and most of, if not all of us do not have access to such software.

Oh....how "convenient" for the OP.


Now then....who can tell us what kind of image manipulation software was available in 1969, 1970, 1971.....etc?

Surely, for any organization committed to *hiding evidence* from Apollo photos that date from the actual historical records and time-frame, they would have had to have very sophisticated computer processing abilities in the 1970s?? I seem to have miss that tidbit from the historical records of the era.

Imagine the immense *team* that wold need to be employed to do this, building a computer that didn't yet exist, writing software that was still a dream for Gates and Wozniak and Jobs.....et al.

Wow! What skilled and genius professionals, hiding all those skills for so many decades.

Oh what and you seriously think the government uses technology that civilians do? NASA can land on the moon what can you do? can you get to the moon? when will you be able to land on the moon your self in wonder?

Most government programmes are 20 or more years more advanced then what they lead us the public to believe, the government spends billions on super computers, billions...

I would bet everything i own the government had a super computer more powerful then any home PC today in the 1970s,

I am a new member of this forum and am thoroughly enjoying the depth of the conversation. I have a deep interest in 'classic' computing and know, for a fact, that the kind of processing power and software engineering did not exist in the late 1960s/early 70s. The Apollo guidance computer managed to fly the CSM/LM stack to the moon using roughly four kilobytes of RAM. The largest, most advanced computers operating at the time were the CDC 6600/7600 units. They averaged about between 1/10 mega-flops per second. (In comparison the AMD chip in my $350 laptop reaches GIGAflops- and I still have a hard time running Photoshop!) Of course a discourse on speed won't take into consideration the complexities of generating useful high resolution graphics-which most of these machines could not do. Early computer generated graphics were cumbersome, low rez, and difficult to output.
Another issue in the use of early computers, was the lack of easy file to computer transport. Imagine using a flash drive that you have to constantly reformat in order to talk to other computers, then, manually rewriting the code of the file in order to have it compiled by the computer. You can't undo errors, you can't hot-swap the drives...total chaos and frustration. Somehow, the idea of late 60s computer operators creating a high-speed, memory packed, cross-platform image editing computer stretches credulity.

There are some interesting things in his video, but it's hard to verify if his hardware is legit, or if he is just breaking down an atari cartridge pixel by pixel.

~SheopleNation

reply to post by DenyStupidity


Like your train of thought!Will keep me awake for a while!

reply to post by 1967sander


Wow...NASA's photo manipulators are about as low budget as the Pentagons security camera system on 9/11
But in all seriousness, if you were to take a photo of a mountain on a full moon night, attempting to recover the 'layers' as shown in this video, would give you almost the EXACT same effect.
The compression artifact leaves it open to tremendous speculation for the untrained eye.

You see a heap of squares that look like stairs/buildings/windows/crystals/whatever...........I see the artifact of a poor quality image.

reply to post by ProudBird


"meh"

We did go to the moon, and we did stage a landing as well.
Neil was almost a ghost when he came back, he was most likely filming the new footage.

If you want to hide something you filmed, and you have the money, you re-film the scenes you want to edit out.

Just saying.

179 flags? Are you people crazy? 179 flags for a video that contains NOTHING? The guy enhances compression artifacts numerous times to show 'staircases' and 'blue man' (quite a feat, considering the original picture is in black and white) and all you guys eat it up?

May I suggest you start reading on how different image compression algorithms actually work and what artifacts they produce. Then I will suggest you all download a free image processing program and play around with a random picture and the different filters in the program, to LEARN something. Jesus Christ people. His claim of using a 'special program that normal people can't even buy' are so ridiculous my head hurts. Just play around with contrast filter and sharpen filter and you will get the EXACT same results as the moron that made this video..

WAKE UP PEOPLE!! Deny ignorance, remember?!?

It got flagged so many times because flags don't mean anything around here anymore apparently, and for the fact it's something different instead of some stupid aircraft lights and military aircraft UFO YouTube videos.

I vote this gets moved to the HOAX bucket...if you wont listen to the professionals, who will you listen to.

Originally posted by Griffo515
I vote this gets moved to the HOAX bucket...if you wont listen to the professionals, who will you listen to.

I second that vote..

reply to post by Griffo515

I vote this gets moved to the HOAX bucket...if you wont listen to the professionals, who will you listen to.

I third that. At the very least, the OP could be more specific about the software he uses, and perform the same operations on a scanned photograph of an ordinary scene.

reply to post by DJW001


This is not a hoax. You may not agree with the OPs conclusions but that does not make this a hoax.

Deny ignorance of what a hoax is.

Originally posted by ProudBird

Imagine the immense *team* that wold need to be employed to do this, building a computer that didn't yet exist, writing software that was still a dream for Gates and Wozniak and Jobs.....et al.

Wow! What skilled and genius professionals, hiding all those skills for so many decades.

You Question?? Something like a Pc Tablet & I pad was Thought of and probably did exist in 1968

Advisers From NASA were in the development of 2001 space odyssey with Artur C Clarke
just may be they did .. just maybe with a little help with their friends we call Aliens ( Visitors )?

IPad concept in movie 2001 (HD Close-Up Shot)

Pc Tablet on the Moon

2 Pc Tablets and having dinner

seeing a PC Tablet being watched by DAVE on the odyssey On a I Pad the Irony!!

Samsung Cites '2001' Movie in Apple Lawsuit
abcnews.go.com...

I wouldn't Surprise ME

edit on 27-10-2011 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)

reply to post by ProudBird

Sure, glad yo, proudbird. My sources are NASAs archives wherein the satellite photos of the target site are available for public access as well as the actual track of the landing crew (overlaid on similar imagery) and a complete transcript of the official dialog during the entire mission. Another source I used heavily was Keith Laney's excellent website on lunar anomalies. Mr. Laney is credited with investigated the discrepancy between the mission objectives and the imagery that did not come with it.

If you have any trouble whatsoever finding any of this, I have archived it in some fashion on my own computer, but it is not so neatly laid out as it is on Mr. Laney's website, but I do have copies of all the related imagery.

When you first lay eyes on the satellite imagery of the target landing site it is plain to see what NASA geologists were so curious about. Right at the foot of the massif, near where there seems to be so evidence of a spectacular landslide long ago, there is what appears to be an opening beneath an overhang. There are several shots of it.

Then, when you inspect the detailed trace of the route the astronauts took in their lunar rover, it shows that this site was the obvious goal of their trek. Curiously, they take considerable risks attempting to land in a place that was really not too easy to land, then they drive all the way there. Finally NASA only releases those images which place the actual opening out of the line of site of the camera shots.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Swills

 

He used some bad ass software, AMS auto multi layer segmentation software, on these photos, and most of, if not all of us do not have access to such software.

Oh....how "convenient" for the OP.


Now then....who can tell us what kind of image manipulation software was available in 1969, 1970, 1971.....etc?

Surely, for any organization committed to *hiding evidence* from Apollo photos that date from the actual historical records and time-frame, they would have had to have very sophisticated computer processing abilities in the 1970s?? I seem to have miss that tidbit from the historical records of the era.

Imagine the immense *team* that wold need to be employed to do this, building a computer that didn't yet exist, writing software that was still a dream for Gates and Wozniak and Jobs.....et al.

I have a friend, which some of you may know of him via his television work, so I won't mention names...but this Guy also works for DARPA and does other contract work for the government ....according to my friend the government has technology 20 years ahead of what is available commercially...I for one would not out UT past tgem

Wow! What skilled and genius professionals, hiding all those skills for so many decades.