Do these manipulated Apollo images hide an unknown civilization?

How on earth, can imaging software 'see through' a photograph of black sticky tape on a photograph.

The mind boggles at the silliness of it all.

So OP is trying to say:



The movie was way unclear, boring, and well.. nothing special. I got the idea, it actually gave me the idea NASA arent revealing all things they do but I really, really dont think there is anything like this on the Moon, I still think it is a dead dusty place.

reply to post by Swills


Swamp gas...... But seriously, how it (meaning whatever it was floating around, appeared to be coming out of the top left hand corner of the testing enclosure) get inside a craft that is air-locked and the crew that came was inside a sterile craft basically from the day it was built, through launch, etc.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Hello,

Here is an update.

I obtained a new application from a friend this afternoon, which should allow me to further analyze the "white man" in the visor. To me this is just a white object but apparantly this new software can see right through the white pixels and reveal shapes. It came with a huge manual so I need a bit of time to study how it works.
I promise that I will come back with the results (pictures / data) when I have learned to use it. (takes a day of two I guess). I will also look at your pictures. If it turns out that I was wrong I offer my apologies as I do not see any problem to admit that.

Have a nice weekend and see you later,

Greetz,

Sander

reply to post by 1967sander


You could also try with a different version, and I think this one even has a slightly higher resolution.

reply to post by ArMaP


Thanks I will test them both.

Greetz,

Sander

in my opinion, this proves that we didn't go to the moon at all. =/ also I'm confused, how can film work in outer space? Wouldntt the radiation destroy the film? I have a lot of questions about that lol.

For those with only Photoshop, this is what can be done with it, with the "Replace color" tool, by someone that does not really know how to work with Photoshop.

(click for full size)

The image I used was not found on a NASA site.

(click for full size)

This one was found on a NASA site, but, has the image above, is a panorama, made with several photos. The individual photos did not show any problem.

PS: as Photoshop has a trial version that anyone can try (get it here), anyone can try the "replace color" tool in any photo.

reply to post by 1967sander


See through white pixels to show shapes? As in blown out parts?

reply to post by 1967sander

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.

Well there we have it, 65% quality of an already compressed image indicates that further compression, one may not get a reading from Photoshop 'Image Info'. I have found about 5-7 years ago Photoshop Image Info has not retained original image info. I know this because I used to use the automatic image history built into Photoshop for copyright verification of digital paintings I did on commissions. Now one can't. Thanks Adobe for being un-user friendly like you used to be. (CS2 was the last version I refer to that would retain file history admissible in a court of law).

The life support backpacks were reengineered for the Apollo 15-16-and 17 missions. They were not the same as the earlier ones. That may also add to some confusion in image comparisons.

Those were the missions they took the lunar rover with them. Systems were very different in nearly every aspect of those later missions than the earlier ones, especially in the area of photography through 'lessons learned' procedures every R&D company does after and during each and every contract award, especially should field operations exist.

That's kind of why we don't try to fly the original Wright Brother's 'Wright Flyer' to the moon.

Here is another top secret view of the pyramids on the moon.

Originally posted by 1967sander
Hi there,

I discovered a few hundred odd manipulations on the Apollo moonlanding imagery. I do not refer to the position of the sun, strange reflections or shadows on the moon surface but genuine image manipulation. Objects edited out, a piece of film covered with sticky tape used to hide "something" and very sloppy paintbrush / photoshop.

For those interested, you can see the photo / frame number in the left corner and Google for it. They can be found everywhere on the internet and of course on all official NASA websites.

This is only a small selection and more videos will follow.

I hope you enjoy the video.

Greetz,

Sander

Thank you for that video I needed a good laugh. So are you the type of guy who thinks we didn't go to the moon or the type that thinks we did go to the moon but it was more like the new movie apollo 18
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Imtor
So OP is trying to say:

The movie was way unclear, boring, and well.. nothing special. I got the idea, it actually gave me the idea NASA arent revealing all things they do but I really, really dont think there is anything like this on the Moon, I still think it is a dead dusty place.

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

sorry I didnt see your post and put up the same video, this thread is silly but still fun lol

reply to post by truthinfact


Yes, we (the Apollo missions) actually did go to the Moon, there are mountains of irrefutable evidence to this fact.

....also I'm confused, how can film work in outer space?

Same way it works here on Earth.

Keep in mind that film is used today in space....aboard the Space Shuttle (when it was still operating) and onboard the ISS. There is at least one IMAX movie that I recall that was filmed in space....actual 65mm movie stock film, not digital. (Some IMAX theatres project a digital image, but the film itself, after being shot, is converted to the digital format).

Hare, and example from 1994 (well before digital photography was prevalent):

IMAX - Destiny In Space(HD)


Here is a link to [at least] 655,716 photos taken by various astronauts, dating back to the Mercury project from the 1960s. SO, many will also be film...although certain more recent photos likely with digital media cameras:

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

It would be interesting to apply the OP's techniques to any one of these examples, perhaps??

reply to post by callmejohndoe


Next time before you reply with a "smart" remark, I suggest you also read the previous postings. Apparantly you are not really interested in the subject. I clearly stated that I do NOT belong to the group of people that question whether we went to the moon. We went there. Period!

reply to post by TexasSushi


Dark side of the moon poster...

www.thesequencers.us...

www.weidmangallery.com...

reply to post by Chadwickus


Thanks Chadwickus! I was trying to place that image (I love that album), but just couldn't quite dredge it up from my memory. For some reason I was thinking Led Zeppelin.

To the OP, I’d be really interested to know what the new piece of software you got is. I have quite a lot of digital media experience myself, and this subject interests me greatly.

Concerning the panorama with apparent large rectangular shapes on the horizon (the first image you analyse in your video, and the image that ArMaP discuss in his post (post by ArMaP), it occurs to me that since these panoramas were composited from a series of images, that the rectangular shapes could just be artefacts from the image compositing.

It seems that is the type of artefact that intense analysis could easily pick up on, especially since the rectangular edges seem to carry into the land from the sky, such as you get when you create any panorama from a series of images. Do you think that may be a possibility?

;-j
Cheers

Originally posted by Illustronic
I know this because I used to use the automatic image history built into Photoshop for copyright verification of digital paintings I did on commissions. Now one can't. Thanks Adobe for being un-user friendly like you used to be. (CS2 was the last version I refer to that would retain file history admissible in a court of law).

Hello Illustronic,

You can still collect an image history, here's a help link here:
help.adobe.com...

(I hope that's what you were looking for!)

And image evidence processed with photoshop continues to be used in courts, it just has to have proper COC. Regarding your method of copyrighting ... Just my opinion, but where I'm from you're better signing onto a guild or something similar if you can find one. Even if you have evidence, I've found it's 20k to start proceedings ... though this is just my unfortunate experience.

Apologies in advance sander, but I'm going to have to call you out on a lot of this stuff.

Originally posted by 1967sander
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

Consider that photoshop was not available in the early beginning of the internet.

Just pointing out, I've been using photoshop and various other apps since 1991 that could do some of these things; I imagine they perhaps existed prior to 1991. Also, a lot of the functions of these apps started in the dark room/science and engineering. Though I'm not going to get into the whole 'what NASA did' debate at this stage.

Originally posted by 1967sander
reply to post by DJW001
I can find and reveal the tiniest bits of contrast deviation on single pixel level and I tell you this "man" is not wearing anything.

I'm not sure why the single pixel level part is important here. There are many calculations that occur on the 'single pixel level'. In fact, sometimes its not always seen as a good thing.

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.

Originally posted by 1967sander
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.

This is what I don't understand ... You've worked for hospitals, military, and for law enforcement but seem completely blind when it comes to dealing with chain of custody or chain of control when it comes to an image.

Where I come from at least, an image has to be submitted to a judge and then a jury. The imagery in question has to be well documented, and the processes laid out in full. A video showing the intermediate steps, or individual frames have to be presented to a jury explaining exactly how the image was altered. It's not something where you can stand up and say, 'I can alter contrast on a single pixel level, and trust me, that's the defendant with a gun!'.

Some of your previous youtube videos for example ... I may not agree with their findings, but at least you can follow them to an extent. However, in this particular thread and example you seem to be delibrately obsficating your imagery, your software, and your method. I'm left asking you the question, why would you expect me to play a game of 'guess the filter' with you?

I obtained a new application from a friend this afternoon, which should allow me to further analyze the "white man" in the visor. To me this is just a white object but apparantly this new software can see right through the white pixels and reveal shapes.

I don't understand the secrecy with the software. I'm pretty certain that Lucis science doesn't exist (or if it did it now doesn't)... but besides that, you just haven't said anything to me yet thats blown me away. IE I imagine you should be many levels above me mathematically and with theory to be able to teach me something new without having to use your software as a 'shield' against the conversation; especially considering I'm nobody. (Not to mention my experience with science imaging software has either been that the applications are very simple and rail roaded to particular tasks, or incredibly clunky and based around programming languages)

Thank you for the compliments, but until you become more transparent, including identfiying your process and your starting imagery I don't really much else to say. The current work is classed as 'creative' in my eyes.

(I did take a glance at AMS and didn't see anything that broke the laws of phyiscs as has been suggested)

reply to post by ArMaP


Hello,

Here it is. I must admit that the white man in the visor indeed appears to be an astronaut based on the outcome of the new software as I can now see something (Hasselblad camera ???) on his chest. I am however still of the opinion that the man in de visor was inserted for some reason. So the next step is to dive into this matter again and try to find evidence that I am wrong. If I am wrong I will tell you.

www.turboimagehost.com...
www.turboimagehost.com...
www.turboimagehost.com...
www.turboimagehost.com...

I will also look at the other images and see if I did not do anything wrong in the process. My software is used in science and in microbiology. Especially there with all these little organisms it is essential that a perfectly clear image is created and the tolerances for artifacts are extremely low. I have corresponded my findings with a few people who also work with the software and hope they can tell me more.

Have a nice weekend,

Greetz,

Sander