Do these manipulated Apollo images hide an unknown civilization?

Now For the Rest of ATS Ive Notice when i got Pictures from the NASA Site of all kinds From what was Taken on Mars and with all that red Hue and just about every Pic Ive used certain Picture Graphic Programs ! and when i used the Editer in these programs that has Auto Color ! and when i Clicked on the Auto Color !!

Presto !!!

Normal Sky Sometimes White or Blue ! The red is Gone and it shows Normal Looking Rocks ! the Colors Mach up on the Mars Lander's and Rovers

Something Like what ive seen in my Graphic Software editors
on these Sites ive just Google,d

Hidden Colors of Mars...

by Goro Adachi
www.goroadachi.com...

The Color of Mars
mars-news.de...

Grab an Graphics Editor that has a Auto Color

and click and save these Pics on this site !

and Open up with your Editor and check them out ! with the Auto Color

( The Big Picture )Boston.com
Martian Skies
www.boston.com...


Viking Mars Lander Photo
Color-Altering Revealed
From Kim Burrafato
rense.com...

That software is showing where light reflection is for the most part.... having a background in graphics, I know that some stuff was doctored, and I don't have a clue why... but 99% of those images, the software is just showing you where the light is bouncing off of the moon. The kind of image manipulation you are claiming, would make many of these objects visible from Earth with a basic telescope.

Go ahead guys, go get you a decent telescope, and look at the Apollo 11 mission area... guaranteed your not going to find a building, or anything abnormal on the moon.

I love you guys, because your giving me plenty of ideas for a future fiction novel I want to write

reply to post by Pimander

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.

It all depends on whether the OP understands how his software works. If he does not understand how compression errors create artifacts, it is not a hoax. If he does understand how the software he uses works, it is a hoax. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. He understands that these scanning and compression artifacts are meaningless, and there is no "ancient civilization" on the Moon, ergo, [HOAX].

Yeah move to hoax. Even if he doesn't know the software he is making analysis of digital copies of old film photographs and he knows that for sure. So he is doing this intentionally.

reply to post by 1967sander


Woaaaahhh! what the hell, i didnt expect results as strange as these... but sweet effort dude!

S+F - good work keep it up

reply to post by 1967sander


1967sander, thank you for the presentation. Its hard work like this that must be done in order for the reality of things to come to LIGHT*. And it amazes me how some of the NASA officials who frequent ATS no name callen SMH come on here and try to impurify the minds of those seeking truth.

I have considered that NASA may be protecting the inhabitants of Earth from something or just leading many astray from sensitive activities in the near future. Either way NASA is trusted by the public to share whats going on but they seem to treat the public like lil dogs looking for a conspiracy bone to chew, so they throw a artificial bone here and there to keep the distraction method up. Its sad but it is on NASA shoulders what they and many others have done to deceive the inhabitants of Earth, SO WITH THAT I HOPE THEY ARE PROUD. ANd I used to want to be an astronaut when I was a single digit age due to my STAR attraction I just didnt realize I didnt have to become them to reach my desired goals of reaching the STARZ and beyond. Thanks again

reply to post by Griffo515


I worked with radar systems and analyzed aerial photography when you still was walking around in diapers.So I know what I am talking about and the stuff I know you still have to discover.

reply to post by longtermproject


Watch my other movies and try to explain them!

reply to post by PsykoOps


NASA does not release any original negatives. Not even to American astronomers. What else is left than using what they offer? By the way the software I use detects manipulations on jpg images, not other formats and as far as I know no other software is capable of finding error levels in compression in other formats than jpg.

So you admid that you're analysing scans and you find digital artifacts on them? Pretty obvious if you ask me.

reply to post by scarystuff


Actually the original picture is in colour. They only removed saturation, which you still can bring back!

reply to post by 1967sander


jpegs could be seen as one great error , they are an approximation of a picture , not designed to be a perfect copy , designed to be small they leave out detail and finnesse, this leads to all sorts of visible errors if you zoom in and look , they are like the visible equivalent of mp3 , not as good quality as say a cd they to are designed to be small , they leave out things "you cant hear"

If you wish to analyse , you need analogue negatives , analogue prints , or a perfect copy of one of these to analyse properly....as someone who analysed ariel photography I am suprised you do not realise this.......

I mean a "staircase".....really

reply to post by PsykoOps


No, I analyze the images NASA uploaded. Are they scans? Yes everyone knows that. Does that change the fact that these images have been altered? No. You should understand one thing. NASA started uploading unedited images right after people begun to use the internet. They never expected that software would become available to
enhance these images and reveal details / information people should not be allowed to see. Soon people started to point out that NASA had photos with anomalies, which resulted in NASA taking hundreds of images off-line. After they photoshopped the reported anomalies, they re-uploaded the images. Consider that photoshop was not available in the early beginning of the internet. That is why 95% of todays images are dated after 2005 and we see that 90% of these "new originals" show photoshop signatures. I was in the position to download a lot of original scanned images, before NASA performed their photoshop. As such I present you with my old originals (yes scanned images) and the new manipulated ones (some scanned and some original scanned edited images.

Do I have original NASA images? No, but I do have the first generation uploads.Is it now clear to you?

reply to post by 1967sander


If that is the case, then why didn't you use the full resolution .TIFF images that NASA always makes available as an alternative to .jpeg?

Also, when NASA first released these digital scans on the internet, (with lower bit depth than the modern scans) capable photo editing software existed to do manipulations (Photoshop had been around since 89'). Why then, as others have asked here, did you use previously manipulated photos, AKA "stitched panoramas" and lower resolution images?

I have had the good fortune of seeing 1st generation copies of the original Apollo photos, from Apollo 12 and 14. They were stunning in their quality. I didn't detect artifacts or imperfections like you have found here with digitized versions.

reply to post by NuminousCosmos


Interesting! Than you have seen something only NASA has access to. Or you thought you saw the real images and they told you they were genuine. Do you have proof? Can you tell me why NO ONE ever has seen these originals and why NASA refuses to release them?

You dont look a sixty year old man to me so I have my doubts that you even have seen a single original.

reply to post by 1967sander


First generation copies were shown to me by a roundabout way, through my deceased great-grandfather. He was a professor of chemistry and a NASA engineer working with rocket fuels in the Saturn IB/V program (liquid oxygen/kerosene) as well as a friend to certain folks involved in the imaging portion of the program. I also have had the pleasure of viewing original Lunar Orbiter 'strips' over three feet long, with exceptional detail fully revealed under a magnifying glass. I could not touch the Apollo images...but I got a pretty good look at several of them. I was also told about, though not shown, some that were underexposed/radiation damaged.

So, if we were going to hide evidence of ETI on the moon...we sure as hell wouldn't go through the process of altering the photographic record; so why not just claim them damaged/spoiled and hoard the info for NASA's supposedly nefarious purposes? Why bother going to the trouble of painstakingly editing every shot brought back from the moon?

reply to post by 1967sander


no they are not scans they are jpegs , it says at the bottom of the images infomation.......every idiot who can be bothered to read knows that..............try again.if u want to analyse use originals or use tiffs , you do know tiffs are far more accurate representations than jpegs dont you , with your claimed analysis background?



what is a first gen upload?
www.lpi.usra.edu...


a jpg.....

Click here for more information.

reply to post by 1967sander


why not save as a tiff ....foool? if your software is so fancy?

and less of the adhominem attacks.....

you dont know what you are talking about

reply to post by NuminousCosmos


Everyone can say that they have seen these originals. I need proof.