Do these manipulated Apollo images hide an unknown civilization?

There is only two issues I have with this evidence, firstly if it is true that the images are JPEGs then a JPEG does not store layer information. JPEGs were designed to highly compress images so any data that wasn't needed was discarded so whatever equipment scanned the image, the JPEG would have formed data based on the returned color scan. JPEGs work in lines, blocks and macroblocks not layers.

My second issue and this is the most significant issue, is that there would have had to have been thousands of people in on the scam had it have been a fake. A rocket definately took off and images were broadcast live. Are people really suggesting that the rocket was empty, did a flypast of the moon, whilst they performed the landing in a film studio. Whilst the Russians observed them very closely for any hint of a fake so that they could humiliate the US.


I'm suprised the faking of moon landings is still being taken seriously as being fake.

reply to post by ProudBird


Hi ProudBird,

Never heard of AMS imaging software before, then again, not working in the medical imaging field, it's little wonder really.

However, i take it that composing 'slices' (separate image or layer of an image) of a CT scan into a 3D image that can be viewed as a whole organ (or whatever else is scanned), or indeed used to select any 'slice' throughout the whole to view as a separate image or layer, is not all this software does, if i'm comprehending what little info i have on the software correctly, it is pretty good at bringing contrast levels up or down depending on the levels of contrast already in the image.

IOW, it's good at picking out or otherwise differentiating between minute variations in the contrast of individual pixels.

And it's not the only software the OP used i gather...but then i don't really see why one would necessarily have to use this expensive and niche software, unless of course, this is the area of employment the OP has, and the software is available to him because he works in microscopy or biology. It becomes less strange if this is so.

We wouldn't have to use this specialised software to perform our own checks on these images. There are other methods and software we can use to achieve the same or similar results, as it happens i have seen similar images around the net through the years, that also highlight anomalous or potentially obfuscated material in the images.

If i had the software the OP used handy, (and had the skills to use it properly) i too would use it over a more common commercial software.

reply to post by spikey


I hope we are on the *same page* here.

I feel that, with the evidence presented in this thread, that the OP is misinterpreting the results displayed from using that 'AMS' software to *analyze* images.

So far, the OP has not yet risen to the many challenges.....USE that same technique, and software, on other images that are JPEG-compressed.

I think it's clear to see that IF that were done, one could then see many, many similar anomalies of the same sort as presented in this OP and in that video that was the focus of the OP.

It is, as the old early days of computing used to say...."GiGo"....Garbage In, Garbage Out........

reply to post by michael1983l


Can't comment on the image format points you've raised, it's not my area and i don't know enough about it, but as for your second and most important point about the requirement to have had thousands of people at NASA (and subsidiaries) 'in on it' for a scam to work is simply not the case.

The secret of success for ANY scam being perpetrated, whether we're talking about a partially faked or altered record of the Lunar landings, or any other scam where a lot of people are to be duped, is the original golden rule of 'the least amount of people actually privy to the scam in the first place, the better the chance of success.'

Need to know...we've heard it hundreds of times before in many areas of intel etc. The same would be true of a scam involving image and film tampering. The huge majority of NASA personnel would never have known or even suspected there was a scam.

Images and film, prepared well in advance of a mission, would be fed to NASA personnel's screens as though they were watching a live version of events, when in reality the telemetry and datas being relayed to them were recorded in advance and being sent FROM the recieving / tracking station in either Honeysucle Creek or Goldstone.

Quite a simple thing to do i'd imagine if it was planned properly. If it was ever revealed, a cover story of 'we did it in case a disaster happened live on air', would convince most people and would suffice as an excuse for a fake broadcast and images.

Most people staring at the data would have been unaware they were seeing pre-recorded data on their screens.

Yes a rocket launched (well, quite a few actually!) and yes, they probably did indeed go to the moon, and yes again, a lot of the images from the era are genuine, untouched images...but many of them are NOT genuine, untouched records of the missions.

Why would NASA go to the moon, take lots of images and fake some of them?

For years they denied they ever manipulated images or film...then they changed their story and said (paraphrasing) Yes, we have retouched some of the images to reduce glare or re frame crooked or skewed shots, or to remove moire (and evidence of a superior civilisation once living on the moon in prehistory) etc.

Why the lie in the first place then?

Then of course NASA denied that the Hubble telescope could image the moon, as the lunar surface, having a high albedo, would damage the delicate sensors on the HST, since they were not calibrated for such a bright and reflective surface...that lie stood for quite a number of years, at least 5 years anyway.

Then it was pointed out that Hubble regularly (pretty much daily) used to point those same sensors at the clouds on Earth as a means of calibration...Clouds lit by the sun...the same sun that lit the lunar surface that was for 5 years "Too bright" to image, even though the clouds on Earth were orders of magnitude BRIGHTER than the lunar surface at noon! Then in 1999, images of the moon, taken by Hubble were released.

Why the lie in the first place then?

It seems NASA has absolutely NO problem with lying to the world, and maintaining the lies for years, until their position becomes untenable when someone roots out or discovers something which forces their grudging admissions.

So, while i believe there was lunar landings, and there were honest and respectable people working within NASA, for reasons best known to the upper echelons of NASA the record, or more accurately segments of the record have been edited, obfuscated or otherwise doctored, yet they only admitted to doctoring after years of badgering by people like the OP who have spotted inconsistencies with many of the images and film, and only for plausible reasons (of course), yet the lies remain.

I think a better question would be not IF NASA have been lying to the world, but rather WHY have NASA been lying to the world.

reply to post by ProudBird


Agreed.

The artifacts (if due to software / compression reasons) should be visible on ALL imagery from the period.

The problem arises though, if one suspects that many or all of the images have been tampered with, then the reasoning would be 'of course the artifacts are there in the images, they have all been doctored'!

I don't personally think they ALL have been tampered with, i think many are original and genuine...but not all of them.

I have seen obvious tampering, without specialised software or any processing at all...just with the naked eye.

I have also seen many anomalies in both printed imagery (from the period) and in imagery from NASA themselves on many occasions. I don't doubt the OP is genuine in his belief about image tampering, for obvious reasons, but i do not agree that the missions were (all) a hoax as some kind of propaganda exercise either.

Most people will never agree, but that's life i suppose...i won't try to convince anyone of anything. I have my opinion and that's about as far as i'll go with it. We will discover the entire truth in the fullness of time i suspect, hopefully sooner rather than later, and not in another 40 odd years time either!

BTW, i like the 'misinterpreted' bit, nice diplomatic touch!

reply to post by spikey


Thank you.

I believe this whole thread is composed of a biased premise, from the outset. In fact, the *cloth* is indeed invisible.

Please refer to the "Emperor Has No Clothes" in order to understand what is being discussed, here.....

reply to post by ProudBird

No problem, thank you too.

I do see what you mean (although i never understand, only comprehend) regarding the cloth...there's a *lot* of that particular cloth around ATS and 'out there' in general, has been for a while.

I read, think and decide i'm interested enough to research and put some work in, in order to further my comprehension of a topic, but the question of and the mystique around the idea of ancient technologically superior human civilisations, achieving greatly - even colonising the moon and possibly other bodies locally too, has always fascinated me and still does.

I think there's a kernel of truth in most stories, even if the story is a lie from the start. It's the kernels of truth in a post or thread that interest me, even if i have to peel a few nuts to get to them!

But i get your point though. Cheers.

reply to post by 1967sander


Explanation: OMFG! St*rred and S&F!

Edited to explain: Embedding the images for the OP]









Personal Disclosure: I think your program has shown you that yes the hassleblad camera is present in the image!

Well, I don't have the same exact peogram hes using, but i used adobe photoshop cs5 on those images. I played around with the contrast, and I viewed it under multiples of 50. +50 contrast, + 100 contrast, + 150 contrast, ect. I personally didn't see the square marque cutout on thereflection off of the astronauts helmet. I DID however find that blue ghost. I couldnt replicate your city on a hill theory, with the stairs, but I did do the picture of the black obyss, and you seemed correct about that one. One has a texture, while the other is basically colored in black, at least that is how it seems...

Lots of people saying "do it youself".
Actually i did, some time ago.
These are the original NASA pictures;



and;



And i did this without any fancy software, just Photo-express and Paint
IMO they have deliberately altered or smudged photo's, that much is obvious.
The question is why?
I think the 'glass' structures theory is a sound one, it's ideal for airless/waterless environments, and there's millions of tons of it lying around, and can be made stronger than steel.
Of course, you might need a huge cooling tower for your glass factory, and since it would only cool by radiation, not convection, it would have to be 5 miles high.
If you find something like that, it would be another indicator that there was (or still is) advanced civilisation on the moon.

reply to post by playswithmachines


Your links don't work, and I have yet to see something that really looked like they were trying to hide something.

maybe this was the scientists way of getting the truth out eg convince their superiors that the pictures have been made "safe" then release to the public knowing they will eventually be found to be tampered, has anyone else bothered to try the software the OP has used yet? In one of the videos on his youtube the OP demonstrates tampering in a picture that has since been removed, (one of the sun showing UFO beside it) id hate to see the remaining evidence get destoryed whilst everyone argues fake without anyone bothering to try the same techniques

I believe there's life on the moon and beyond and the government know about it but they wont tell us because it will cause Mass Paranoia and religions would collapse think of all the religious people that believe in god imagine that would do to them you and i mite be ready but are other people

reply to post by ArMaP


For some reason, i can still see the photo's but they are not getting posted here.
Never mind, it's not important.
What i wanted to show you is that you can download photo's from NASA/JPL and within minutes you can find anomalies such as blacked out areas etc.
Why would they do this?

reply to post by playswithmachines

For some reason, i can still see the photo's but they are not getting posted here.
Never mind, it's not important.
What i wanted to show you is that you can download photo's from NASA/JPL and within minutes you can find anomalies such as blacked out areas etc.
Why would they do this?

If you cannot figure out how to upload photos to this website, it calls your ability to use digital imagery processing software into question. When you post the photos, we will discuss them. Be sure to provide a link to the original source so that we can see what format was used. The whole gist of this thread is that digital processing creates artifacts.

reply to post by playswithmachines


Sorry but anyone who uses PHOTOEXPRESS & Paint to show that NASA alters images must be trying to gives us all a good

Originally posted by DJW001
If you cannot figure out how to upload photos to this website, it calls your ability to use digital imagery processing software into question. When you post the photos, we will discuss them.

Does it? BS!

It calls into question somebodies ability to use BB code and has sweet FA to do with image processing software.

Originally posted by playswithmachines
What i wanted to show you is that you can download photo's from NASA/JPL and within minutes you can find anomalies such as blacked out areas etc.

I have never seen blacked out areas on NASA photos, only missing data from digital photos, mostly from the Mars rovers.

These videos were pretty convincing, BUT... If you've sent some people on the moon to take some pictures, you'd assure that they'd take a lot of them. Including pics that would be ok to show to the public, without the need of modifying pics that otherwiswé would literally blow up our sense of being as a race. Or maybe they landed to the equivalent of times square here in Earth - impossible to photograph anything else but buildings...

reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion


No. I'm not going to do the footwork on YOUR theories if I don't believe you in the first place. I called shenanigans on the OP from the get go...it's just a bonus that whoever made the video in the first place didn't care enough to post actual evidence, just his or her rendition of reality.

Now, you're either going to debate my nature of skepticism, or you're going to post proof. Since you've chosen, several times now, to dance around several requests by myself and many others, for concrete evidence that we can take to the bank, then I assume you're just full of it.

But hey, you'll fit right in. You'll be in good company among the other "ignorance fighters" on this site that choose to abandon reason in favor of conformity.

Fall in line people, no evidence to see here.