Do these manipulated Apollo images hide an unknown civilization?, page 17

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 01:45 AM

link

reply to post by backinblack

It was a fair question, asked of the OP.

But you felt some urgent need to butt in?

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 01:49 AM

link

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by backinblack

It was a fair question, asked of the OP.

But you felt some urgent need to butt in?

Yes because many are calling him a liar and a hoaxer but you want to use their belief to quantify the moon landings??

A little odd IMO.

ProudBird

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:00 AM

link

reply to post by backinblack

Well.....hmmmmm.

Here's my personal opinion after reviewing this OP's statements.

He is sincere. Sincerity matters whether something is deemed a "hoax"...because a true hoax requires intent to deceive. Mere misunderstanding, or misapplication of tools, is not "intent".

I base this on the starting premise of the OP, using the available media taken as a fact of Apollo imagery. On that basis, I made that opinion.

The rest of the debate is outside this edge we are teetering on. so I end with that.

Kandinsky

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:25 AM

link

reply to post by ProudBird

I shared the view that he was sincere and have changed my mind towards the end of this thread.

I now think he's either trying to deceive us or deceiving himself.

This is evident by his refusal to provide links or sources of images used. When reasonable points are made, he either ignores them or evades them in his answers. He's been shown to mislead and misidentify his images in previous threads. When this has been shown, he once more replies without actually addressing the problem.

There's also a slight whiff of the 'insider' meme that many an ATS hoaxer has used before. In this case, he has 'highly expensive' technology that isn't available to the general public and claims he works 'daily' with 'law enforcement technology.' This might be the case, but it does follow the MO of guys seeking to present an air of authority to substantiate their claims. BIG claims here too.

From memory, I've only *called out* four ATS members as hoaxers since joining. It isn't taken lightly. One was Anthony Sanchez (banned), another was a fake scientist (banned) and another has stopped posting (he's making a movie lol). Oh yeah, some guy claiming to be a psychopath and had multiple accounts. Nice fella.

ETA: Dammit, I forgot about Unity_99 - reeks of fabricated claims and I called her out on one of them.

edit on 29-10-2011 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)

ProudBird

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:44 AM

link

reply to post by Kandinsky

I now think he's either trying to deceive us or deceiving himself.

Gotcha. Out of a sense of politeness and fair play, I will stick with "Door Number 2" above, please Monty!

(For now)...

edit on Sat 29 October 2011 by ProudBird because: arrrgh BB tags

1967sander

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:04 AM

link

reply to post by ProudBird

Yes I am 100% convinced that we went to the moon. I do not believe in the theory that everything was staged in a studio and that the astronauts walked around in a created moonscape somewhere on Iceland, or in Arizona.
When you read the Apollo flight journals carefully than you find evidence that they saw, heard and found things we are not (yet) supposed to know of. Not all images have been tampered with. Thousands appear to be in their "original" state, at least I could not find anything suspicious yet. Some images show lots of "things" that look like dust, emulsion problems or scratches but in my view there is more going. I do not belong to the group of people that question whether we went to the moon or not. We went there. Period.

Greetz,

Sander

P.S. As far as these originals: I will look up of for the links and the md5 hash so you can verify that we analyzed the same.

edit on 29-10-2011 by 1967sander because: txt

DJW001

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:41 AM

link

reply to post by 1967sander

SO than we agree on the fact that the reflection in the visor is not the astronaut. Exactly what I said. I never said that the "white man" was an astronaut because he is not, correct? Did I not also say that this is a manipulation?

You have misrepresented my statement, twisting my words to support your lie. Yes, lie. I had been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but this cheap verbal manipulation convinced me that you know perfectly well what you are doing. What I said was: " This is not the astronaut taking the photo. This is a manipulation of an enlargement of a scan of a print of a negative of a film photograph of a tiny reflection in an astronaut's visor." My point is that you are attempting to claim that you can determine that the splotch of pixels that comes out of this process was not caused by the astronaut who took the photo. You simply do not have enough information to make that determination. Here, let me draw you a picture:

So where is your problem?

At no point have you been willing to consider any of the issues raised on this thread. Your answers are full of evasions, misdirection and misrepresentation.

edit on 29-10-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

ProfessorT

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:43 AM

link

This is a very interesting thread and the video was very informative and mind-blowing too. However, could the software the producer of the video used contributed to what we were seeing in the videos? Could the enhancement of the images provided us with things that 'were not there' but instead made to look as if they were due to the enhancement and various layers of contrasts? On the other hand, at around 4.30 in the video that tall structure looks like a cooling tower attached to another building beside it. Thanks for posting, very interesting.

gambon

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 05:31 AM

link

What I do find interesting is that so many star and flaggers have registered in the last 10 months , and seem to leave either one liners , or 2 liners , along lines of

" wow buddy , you found some amazing shizzle the , never thought would see something so amazing".............................

not actually adding anything to the thread

I can smell fishy wishy

1967sander

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 05:34 AM

link

reply to post by gambon

I am not longer paying attention to you sir. Unpolite, rude and only provoking. To me you are air.

edit on 29-10-2011 by 1967sander because: txt

gambon

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 05:41 AM

link

wow that was really original of you ........"No thats your underpants"

I havnt heard that word "underpants"used in decades,lolol,I go commando fella
.one liners not allowed ,

You dont seem to act or use vernacular of your age or something wierd ,you say have a background in this that and the other , but how you use language just seems odd for someone of your your age?
even more suspicion now?

I AM ONLY AIR AND AS AIR I WILL ENVELOPE AND SURROUND YOU TRANSPARENT BUT OF INVISIBLE FORCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!lololololololol

and youve used the "air" , line already at least once , another use of unusual phrases

edit on 29-10-2011 by gambon because: (no reason given)

Ah i see you edited your mindless oneliner

sniff

edit on 29-10-2011 by gambon because: point out his post now edited

edit on 29-10-2011 by gambon because: (no reason given)

OmegaLogos

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 06:25 AM

link

reply to post by 1967sander

Explanation: Uhmmm?

1stly OL quote hiself!

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by 1967sander

Explanation: Uhmmm?

You only have to look at the size of the square surrounding the "white man" to see that this never ever can be a pack.

Here ...

To show depth...

Enlarged and notes added to copy of enlargement.

A = Arm reflected in curved helmet.

B = Actual arm that appears in reflection.

C = Huge backpack.

Close up of Buzz.

Large blocky backpack emphasized in copy of above close up of Buzz.

C = Huge backpack.

Size comparison.

The picture on the left [our left] was resized to make Buzz look smaller as if we were far away from them taking their picture and the picture on the right [our right] was a cropped only screengrab from the youtube vid linked in the OP set on 480p normal [Edited: NOT FULL ..my apologies
] with my resolution set at 1024 by 768 pixels. [Edited to add a link to the exact moment I took a screengrab 9min 57sec [youtube]

As can be clearly seen ... Buzz and Neil are the same size and the pack on Buzz is just as huge!

Personal Disclosure: And Uhmmm?

Speaking of square: explain the totally different colors inside the square in relation to the rest of the image!

C = Huge backpack.

D = Astronaut.

E = Astronauts shadow.

All the other samples you present have absolutely nothing to do with the manipulation of this particular image.

Please explain why they don't in graphic detail.

edit on 26-10-2011 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to clarify left and right side as OUR left and right.

edit on 26-10-2011 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to add the edit and fix some failures on my part to be clear about my method. soz me a

2ndly I have added to the above comparision picture I provided a 2nd reflected astronaut copied and cropped ...

And I cant help but notice the exact same posture between the figures in the center image and the far right [our right] image!

I also can't help but notice the far right reflected astronaut doesnt seem to have a huge backpack...

img.abovetopsecret.com...

And I found out that the PLSS [Primary Life Support System [wiki] backpack ] comes with ...

An emergency backup was provided in case the main system failed, by a separate unit called the Oxygen Purge System (OPS), mounted on top of the PLSS, immediately behind the astronaut's helmet. The OPS maintained suit pressure and removed carbon dioxide, heat and water vapor through a continuous, one-way air flow vented to space. When activated, the OPS provided oxygen to a separate inlet on the pressure suit, once a vent valve on a separate suit outlet was manually opened. The OPS provided a maximum of about 30 minutes of emergency oxygen for breathing and cooling. This could be extended to 75 to 90 minutes by employing a "buddy system", using the other astronaut's functional PLSS.[1]

The PLSS was 26 inches (66 cm) high, 18 inches (46 cm) wide, and 10 inches (25 cm) deep. It was tested in space for the first time by Russell Schweickart in a stand-up EVA in Earth orbit on Apollo 9. His PLSS weighed 84 pounds (38 kg) on Earth, which translated to a weight of only 14 pounds (6.4 kg) on the Moon. The OPS weighed 41 pounds (19 kg) on Earth (6.8 pounds (3.1 kg) on the Moon).[2]

The OPS was also used as a backup on tethered in-space EVAs where a spacecraft provided oxygen to the astronaut through an umbilical hose.[citation needed]

Above picture source from Here! [wiki]

And so although its absence is strange it can be entirely accounted for and discounted as an unexplainable anomaly!

Personal Disclosure: Please apply your special program to this picture [supplied below] and post the results for us to compare with the center and far left pictures I supply above.

1967sander

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 06:29 AM

link

reply to post by DJW001

Why on earth would I bother discussing with people who do not believe anything at all except themselves.
I dont care if people call me a hoaxer or liar, manipulator or whatever anymore. I have had it completely.
Forget the links, forget everything. I will only focus on my channel. Those who are interested in the subject know to find me anyway.

ArMaP

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 07:20 AM

link

Originally posted by NullVoid
Is it so hard to find the original picture ?

If by "original" you mean the specific photo used by the 1967sander (or any other photo used by anyone), then the answer is yes, because even NASA sites have different versions of the same photo.

I have seen at least two occasions in which a NASA site had a manipulated photo that was available in it's original (or apparently unmanipulated) in other sites, and when ATS members found that the images were replaced by unmanipulated versions.

So, knowing from where any poster got his/her photos is important, because if all versions look manipulated then we can easily assume that the unmanipulated photo is not available, but if the manipulated photo comes from a site not even connected to NASA (there was a thread some time ago in which most of the manipulated photo came from private sites, while the NASA sites showed what looked like unmanipulated versions) then we can assume that the manipulation was not made by NASA but by someone else.

Kandinsky

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 07:24 AM

link

reply to post by 1967sander

I dont care if people call me a hoaxer or liar, manipulator or whatever anymore. I have had it completely. Forget the links, forget everything. I will only focus on my channel. Those who are interested in the subject know to find me anyway.

We've been here before haven't we? Last time it was me who asked you to stay on. Not sure that was the right idea now

Illustronic

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 08:09 AM

link

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by 1967sander

And so although its absence is strange it can be entirely accounted for and discounted as an unexplainable anomaly!

Personal Disclosure: Please apply your special program to this picture [supplied below] and post the results for us to compare with the center and far left pictures I supply above.

I'm not seeing it! The life support backpack seems to be in direct comparison to the reflected image and the non-reflected image. Also consider the reflected image is distorted with the spherical 'fisheye' optics, which would enlarge things closer to the helmet and exaggerate the parallax receding size comparison of objects more distant from the reflected surface, the pack on the back.

I only resized and filtered to cut down on the glare, to better make out the objects from the background you can see the backpack is proportionally similar, even with lens distortion.

reply to post by 1967sander

You could present the source of the imagery you accessed for starters. The refusal to do so is the indication that you are not being honest. It is that simple. Jpeg artifacts can come from various internet upload software, in fact if you have used anything other than a direct digital scan of the original film negative your whole exercise is simply a waste of time, and indicates an ulterior motive.

1967sander

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link

reply to post by OmegaLogos

Hi there,

One last time. Regarding your personal disclosure image; it went through photoshop:

Photoshop IRB detected
Identifier = [Ducky]
Photoshop Save For Web Quality = [65]
compression signature: 01EDA06D0F21C77828F6D5BF5BB25EB8
secundary signature: 01EDA06D0F21C77828F6D5BF5BB25EB8
Photo was opened at 90 % quality and resaved at 65 % quality.
Luminance of this photo was changed.
No apparant editing except the shadow of the astronaut in the visor does seem a bit weird.
The astronaut in the visor appears to be carrying the flag.
The time on the watch of the astronaut: approx. 02.50 - check with photo idx to see if this is the correct time
the photo is reported to have been taken.
In the visor, right of the astronaut, near the horizon is a strange black triangle but that can also be an artifact.

Greetz,

Sander

NullVoid

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link

Here is the link from the monster itself
A picture from Apollo 17
Film roll no 146,
Exposure no 22390
Taken during EVA3

Its showing South Massif (on the left) and (West) Family Mountain
Rover tire can been seen on left most area
Weird nasa comment on this pic is "The Hole on The Wall" near the South Massif
(probably the "cave" sander found ?).

Link to file detail (some are sharpened)
Link to high resolution (the best source)
Link to file medium res

They went to the moon ? I dont know, on fence tiliting to NO
They fake the picture ? Definitely
I found from Aulis website and Jack White analysis, look through them and found something everybody missed. A condition not right and it consist of 1 movie and 2 picture.

Why they fake the pics ?
Apollo missions reek of lies, not from NASA, from its parent.
Just be honest to the world, we can understand its a hard thing to achieve, when will US Gov understand that failure is OK ?.
We are not the center of the universe
We are not the only creature in the universe
The other creatures is 1billion years ahead of us
just admit that and people will "Oh ? OK, please protect us" and continue with their lives, its that easy.

Truth hurts, its the lying that kills

OmegaLogos

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link

reply to post by Illustronic

Explanation: Thanks for that ... but I wanted the OP'er to do that via another method ... [see below]

Personal Disclosure: But St*rred anyway for a great job!

reply to post by 1967sander

Explanation: No! Please do what you did to this picture [as shown in your video] ...

OR its equivillant ... that resulted in the center picture [that i screengrabbed from the video]...

So what ever IMAGING enhancing program you are using in that video ... I want you to use that on this picture ...

And for you to upload the resulting jpg here to ATS and display it in a post so I can have look and compare the
posture of the reflected astronaut and any blocky backpack appearence of a halo etc.

Personal Disclosure: Once you have given me another picture that is similar to compare with, then we will be all able to see any obvious non similarities and that will give us all a baseline to start comparing the other images in your video with.

I do thank you for your reply [Star for you .. you are trying and I acknowledge that ok] and I do believe you are sincere [if a little upset] and that this is not a hoax but just a case of misread data.

I only focused on this because you stated in your video that this was your best data so far and I actually think you have better data in other pictures [the panorama and the rocks revealed etc] and I would like myself to move beyond this specifc issue as I think it has been done to death ... but as a goodwill gesture I ask you to provide the picture as detailed above ok!

CrikeyMagnet

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link

reply to post by 1967sander

Out of curiosity, are LROC images available for the same areas? Have you tried a similar approach with those?