Do these manipulated Apollo images hide an unknown civilization?

reply to post by ArMaP


Hello,

I get my images straight from well-known websites:

www.archive.org
history.nasa.gov...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...
hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...
spaceflight.nasa.gov...
etcetera

Greetz,

Sander

reply to post by 1967sander


Could you please post the source of the images you used in your video?

Thanks in advance.

reply to post by ArMaP


I know that this will not be appreciated but no sorry I am not going to point out any direct link. Some of these images come from these mentioned websites. The ID is clearly visible in green in the video. They are all still there, except the blue man photo, which is already very old and no longer uploaded but replaced a long time ago.

Greetz,

Sander

reply to post by 1967sander

Sander, your posts are excellent and entertaining! Do not get discouraged by some negative comments. This is how the truth gets flushed out and you are doing an excellent job defending your position and methods, even I can understand it! Your explanations are eloquent and backed by science. I star you and friend you, looking forward to your next investigation ( I've watched all the ones on your web site).
brice

reply to post by 1967sander

The "owner" of the tif file can manipulate whatever he / she wants, than protect it with a password so no one else can. No file type is safe / excluded from manipulation. What can be made, can be changed, can be manipulated. There are plenty freeware applications and commercial applications that allow to complete file data manipulation. I have seen 500 Kb files that showed an original file size of 2 Mb, where a B/W suddenly was changed to RGB and other nice manipulations.

Comments like this implicate you as an attention-seeking hoaxer.

You're very knowledgeable of hoaxing and data manipulation and yet come across all innocent and unknowing when anyone suggests you're doing the same thing.

A couple of months back, I posted explanations (here and here) of your videos that included technical papers and images that included 'RGB.'

You pretended not to know about RGB...

No I have not asked myself why they are white, red, blue or green, white with orange, blue with purple / violet, green with white or any other colour. Did you know that deepsea creatures also use blue, red, and green lights and they have no idea of CCD or RGB. These basic colours show up everywhere in nature and also in space. So if an object appears in these colours than that's pretty normal to me.

Always evasive and ducking the questions. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and put it down to enthusiasm. After this thread, I'm with Chad and reckon you're deliberately hoaxing for attention.

Indeed I now have found better (software)channels in (semi)scientific areas (I worked in an academic hospital for a while and now on a dailly basis deal with experts in law enforcement (photo/video) technology.

Yeah right.

reply to post by 1967sander

I know that this will not be appreciated but no sorry I am not going to point out any direct link. Some of these images come from these mentioned websites. The ID is clearly visible in green in the video. They are all still there, except the blue man photo, which is already very old and no longer uploaded but replaced a long time ago.

As I pointed out, at least one of those IDs that are...

clearly visible in green

...don't exist in the NASA archives or show up on Google, Dogpile or Yahoo.

Originally posted by 1967sander
I know that this will not be appreciated but no sorry I am not going to point out any direct link.

That's too bad, I was thinking about spending some minutes analysing the same images you used to see if I could get similar results with free software.

Could you at least explain why you don't want to provide those links?

Some of these images come from these mentioned websites. The ID is clearly visible in green in the video.

From what I have seen, each site has their version of the photos, that's why knowing where did the image came from is important; we don't know if you used a bad or a good copy, and as the photos are not your own I don't see why you do not want to share the source.

I downloaded this image from the internet after looking up apollo mission and then simply looked at it contrasted . ( Not saying this is a building , but I did do a few other images with a black background and didn't even come close to this result. Still not sure what the heck this is really.
[

[/URL ]
[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/253/apolloafterhighcontrast.jpg/]

reply to post by lithegrace


Could you please post the source of the images you are using?

If these images show signs of being manipulated it would be good to know where they come from.

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
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?

My hat off to you sir, one of the only posts in this thread that makes sense! Of course Nasa manipulate the images digitally for the same reason the film industry re-release remastered films, as the technology improves as does the quality of the image manipulation.
It must have been an honour to see the real originals - prior to digitisation, because after that point the images would always contain artifacts ripe for far fetched analysis. The original uploads were probably fancied up the best they could with the technology they had so yeah of course they were manipulated but not to hide anything.

I agree with NuminousCosmos, they'd just claim damaged/spoiled and lock 'em away in a Top Secret drawer - would you really edit and post the dubious images online ?

Edit - Oh and whilst it's great members are having a go to replicate the artifacts (always good to test these things out) please post the source of the images you used - getting them off google images is not a worthy reference without the date/time downloaded and source url. I've got a feeling half of the analysis going on is from dodgy 5th generation jpeg's!

reply to post by Pinke


Hello Pinke,

I promised you the ELA of the blue man. Here it is.

Note: the original file created through analysis was 80 Mb large. I had to crop it back to approx. 7.74 Mb
so I could upload it to the server.

www.turboimagehost.com...

Look at the hillslope. What you see is a lot of noise created when they manipulated this image. Also check for the strange blue object in the sky. When you look at the different compressions you can see what was edited.

Greetz,

Sander

reply to post by Kandinsky


Do I hear air?

reply to post by ArMaP


Sure I got the image here. Hope this helps. :0
www.astronet.ru...

Originally posted by 1967sander
Note: the original file created through analysis was 80 Mb large. I had to crop it back to approx. 7.74 Mb
so I could upload it to the server.

If you need to upload large images, I suggest eSnips. They accept files up to 100MB and offer a total of 5GB of online storage, free.

reply to post by lithegrace


It does, thanks.

Is it so hard to find the original picture ?
or is it lack/ignorance of "know how" ?

it wasnt so hard

Great work star and flag brother. Well atleast a star anyways

reply to post by 1967sander

I know that this will not be appreciated but no sorry I am not going to point out any direct link. Some of these images come from these mentioned websites. The ID is clearly visible in green in the video. They are all still there, except the blue man photo, which is already very old and no longer uploaded but replaced a long time ago.

More obfuscation.

Why aren't you being open and honest?

reply to post by 1967sander


This post was not directed to me, which is fine because I didn't understand it anyway....

But, I have a question that relates to your video, and OP (and appreciating the comment earlier, re: YouTube and no compensation goals nor agenda. Thanks):


By using images from Apollo missions, does this mean that you, personally, have given tacit acknowledgement of the veracity....or shall I say, reality.....of Apollo and the manned Lunar landing missions?

Setting aside, please for now, any *argument* over whether or not something is "hidden".

Because, this will go a long way to explaining to the ever-shrinking cult of manned Moon landing "hoax" believers, should it come to that.

Just wondering...because if the answer is "Yes", then that will be intriguing to contemplate (and possibly refer to) further.

reply to post by ProudBird

By using images from Apollo missions, does this mean that you, personally, have given tacit acknowledgement of the veracity....or shall I say, reality.....of Apollo and the manned Lunar landing missions?

Man you grasp at straws..

Gonna use that in any up coming moon hoax thread.??