Do these manipulated Apollo images hide an unknown civilization?

reply to post by DJW001


Hello DJW001,

I can't tell you why the same images over at the Apollo 11 Journal you spoke of are so poor. I would go look at the same photos at "The Project Apollo Archive" as I mentioned. They are clearer than LPI's images also.

No, I do not think the object on the hill, is lint.

Have fun, John

Originally posted by Moonatic
I sure hope ...we get to meet them soon before the worlds oil reserves runs out.

This is the BIGGEST secret of them all. The oil is not going to run out any time soon, or in the next five generations. This is a secret because "we" (everyone but ME and the oil barons) are thinking it is inevitable that we'll all move on to other energy sources as the oil runs out. Well we don't need to. Big oil rely on this con to keep us hooked on oil like black gold junkies. The oil companies know of more reserves now than they ever have in the past. If you don't believe me the check for yourself.

If anyone wants me to keep quiet about this then I'm waiting for my check!

Originally posted by Moonatic
I would hope we, as the people of Earth could be smart enough to get together and find away to use their advanced technology ...equally...for all mankinds benefit.

Who do we think might have a vested interest in this NEVER happening. Who runs this planet by controlling the most important resource on it?



P.S. You don't have to work for the JPL or be a rocket scientist to answer this question big boys.

I loved this video because it show what I have always believed and said many times to friends and here on ATS: we have been to the moon yes but they saw something very weird and possibly of extra-terrestrial origin or very shocking to our civilization.

I thought it was a great video! But what I thought was as interesting is the replys....How many of you lot are paid trolls??

Then there was people claiming that they cannot find AMS software... one google search dropped me here ams-photo-software.com...


I dont know if this is the software used? But why dont you lot prove him wrong. If you think he is lying then prove it. if not....Then perhaps keep quiet, and tell your masters that that you was ill when this thread hit!

Originally posted by PlentyoTool
I thought it was a great video! But what I thought was as interesting is the replys....How many of you lot are paid trolls??

Then there was people claiming that they cannot find AMS software... one google search dropped me here ams-photo-software.com...


I dont know if this is the software used? But why dont you lot prove him wrong. If you think he is lying then prove it. if not....Then perhaps keep quiet, and tell your masters that that you was ill when this thread hit!

In one comment he said the software is still not available to public and may never be (!).
Still looks like complex algorithms that increase the contrast, it's supposed that artifact may appear in such algorithms but they don't explain all those anomalies.

reply to post by nekomata111


Reading the many posts from some who are well-versed in the technical details of image manipulation, it is apparent that the OP and maker of these videos is sorely mistaken.

The indications of "alterations" that his software uncovers is due to the changes made to the photos as part of various techniques, to include merely copying digitally and preparing for publication. There are image compression artifacts, as well as some cases where the original images were either merged together, to form panoramas, or simply altered for aesthetic balance and appearances.

Further, hen pressed, the OP and video maker did not satisfactorily answer my questions about the other video and visual media used during the Apollo missions --- the 16mm photographic film in the Data Acquisition Cameras, and the color TV transmissions that were live at the time, recorded for viewing by posterity.

Color 16mm film is a series of individual frames on a celluloid strip, as everyone no doubt knows. In order to "hide" some "evidence" of a "civilization", each and every frame in the film would have to have been individually altered. The live TV transmissions, in that era, had no ability to be changed to "hide" anything, either.

These two video formats recorded many of the same landscapes ("moonscapes"), including surround terrain, hills, the horizon, etc, as are seen in the Hasselblad 70mm still transparencies.


Here is one example from a DAC film, during Apollo 15...the camera was carried on the Lunar Rover (LRV) during this drive on EVA 2:

Originally posted by ProudBird
Color 16mm film is a series of individual frames on a celluloid strip, as everyone no doubt knows. In order to "hide" some "evidence" of a "civilization", each and every frame in the film would have to have been individually altered.

Not true.

Whole reels of film containing evidence could be removed. If you were ordered not to film evidence then you would avoid doing so by checking that where you intend to film is evidence free first and only film "cold" areas. This would be made easier if a landing site and surrounds were selected because they were already thought to be likely evidence free.

I could make a 16mm film of Earth with no evidence of civilisation on it. Say the Antarctic or Sahara or most oceans. In fact most of the Earths surface would not reveal evidence of civilisation on 16mm film. Would that mean there was no civilisation on Earth?

Originally posted by ProudBird The live TV transmissions, in that era, had no ability to be changed to "hide" anything, either.

But how do we know they were live. Obviously, a recording could even be broadcast from space. It isn't rocket science to see that it isn't so straight forward to be certain about this.

I'm not saying I have all of the answers. None of the above means they did film/photograph/witness evidence. However, don't be put off looking for it based on the logic above. If Maurice Chatelain and others say there was something else up there, they might not be lying.

Originally posted by PlentyoTool
I thought it was a great video! But what I thought was as interesting is the replys....How many of you lot are paid trolls??

Then there was people claiming that they cannot find AMS software... one google search dropped me here ams-photo-software.com...


I dont know if this is the software used? But why dont you lot prove him wrong. If you think he is lying then prove it. if not....Then perhaps keep quiet, and tell your masters that that you was ill when this thread hit!

Relevant quotes from OP:

Lucis Science and AMS (scientific application, not yet available on the market. I have the channels and contacts in the industry and was lucky enough to obtain it / have permission to use it for betatesting but not distribute).

There are only a few science papers written on the subject (software) and these special designed algorithms. Basically both applications I use can analyze images on single pixel level. You will find the answer on Google!

Compare AMS with a 2 dimensional CT-scan. It slices an image in thousands of contrast layers and creates a new image from these selectable contrast layers.

Yes as every software Lucis also has side effects but never that big that it could create "fake" looking images.

On that particular photo I only used A.M.S. which as someone correctly investigated is a new medical high tech software and still in beta phase. (just not only for liver)

Previous post regarding software: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I did read the relevant papers etc ... the OP directed me towards, and I don't think I've missed anything.

The AMS software you were linking to has interesting effects and 'frames' photos and has nothing to do with CT scans. Nor has there been any journal articles or papers written on the subject. There have, however, been journal articles written about AMS attempts and techniques etc ...

Those papers don't seem to support how the OP is using the software.

Edit: I realise it's quite difficult to read a long thread, but I think these points sum up most of it for me. Feel free to disagree.

reply to post by Pimander

Whole reels of film containing evidence could be removed.

Sorry, but this is a weak argument.

The historical record of the stock of film that was carried for each flight, the cartridges for the camera, the vast mountain of written transcripts of voice audio, and the recorded audio, that match up with the other evidence, the flight plans, etc,etc....

There are references to research that would reveal any "missing" footage. Apollo was greatly historically significant, and anything "missing" wold have been pounced upon, long ago, by the avid archivists......fans and aerospace enthusiasts who don't work for NASA, or any government agency, and thus have no compulsion to "hide" or "cover-up" anything.

I can't believe this thread is back up again...though nice shout-out in the ATS video.

Anyway, OP thinks NASA is hiding aliens by manipulating analog images using digital means. He uses images already modified by NASA public relations and ignores the ultra-high quality archive images readily available.

I, and many others in this thread, have used the higher quality photos and shown that the "anomalies" do not exist. I think that Sander is using a program to find clues in a manner inconsistent with it's designed specs.

I say the whole thing is an entertaining and educational train wreck on how NOT to analyze photographs.

Originally posted by ProudBird
The historical record of the stock of film that was carried for each flight, the cartridges for the camera, the vast mountain of written transcripts of voice audio, and the recorded audio, that match up with the other evidence, the flight plans, etc,etc....

It is very easy to say you took so many reels of film and really take more in secret. That is so obvious.

There is no reason why the films can't have been taken in such a way as to avoid revealing evidence. That doesn't mean they were but my point is valid. The same goes for "live" transmissions. Anyone can broadcast a recording from a space craft. That doesn't mean it happened that way but pretending it can't have is a weak argument.

At the end of the day it would not be as hard to avoid filming evidence as most of the Earth would show nothing as it is ocean or desert including the Arctic and Antarctic frozen deserts.

Originally posted by ProudBirdThere are references to research that would reveal any "missing" footage. Apollo was greatly historically significant, and anything "missing" wold have been pounced upon, long ago, by the avid archivists......fans and aerospace enthusiasts who don't work for NASA, or any government agency, and thus have no compulsion to "hide" or "cover-up" anything.

That does not mean that archived footage was all legitimate. It may have been but possibly was not.

reply to post by Pimander


At the end of the day, you are left with a hypothesis that has zero support, except the accusation that everyone lies to you and you wont believe anything presented. I wonder how you trust the food you eat or what your alarm clock says. But you realize it is you making the case of an alternate reality so it is you that has to come up with supporting evidence other than saying evidence available is fake, with no grounds of beginning to prove you are being lied to except tangent beliefs you wont believe anything presented. It is you making the case, so support it with evidence, not heresy. How do we know you just aren't making things up, taking a side to take a side, arguing for an argument, wheres you stuff? And why should we believe you? Show us technical cooperating evidence, that can be crosschecked for validity, we don't care what people say about historical human nature, show us science that can be verified with independent third party results consistent in experimentation to see if the legs you stand on are real. NASA has, quit dragging you feet and get moving!

Originally posted by Illustronic
But you realize it is you making the case of an alternate reality so it is you that has to come up with supporting evidence other than saying evidence available is fake, with no grounds of beginning to prove you are being lied to except tangent beliefs you wont believe anything presented. It is you making the case, so support it with evidence, not heresy.

I wasn't saying everyone is lying. I was highlighting a flaw in the argument presented not "proposing an alternative reality."

Originally posted by ProudBird
Color 16mm film is a series of individual frames on a celluloid strip, as everyone no doubt knows. In order to "hide" some "evidence" of a "civilization", each and every frame in the film would have to have been individually altered. The live TV transmissions, in that era, had no ability to be changed to "hide" anything, either.

Proudbird tried to make the case that the 16mm film must be legitimate and live transmissions can't have been changed in that era. I disagree. There are other possibilities.

Now you guys will most likely respond as though I am saying something else or am a crazy nut-job living in bleary eyed fantasy. Sorry, I'm not. There's no need to be touchy, either of us could be wrong. I'm not sure how you would expect me to provide evidence that the Moon was filmed in a selective way or that some of the "live broadcasts" were recordings from space. You tell me if you can work out how.

You can also try to convince members that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Anyone scientifically trained knows that isn't true.

I am suspicious of some Apollo footage, such as where astronauts appear to be hanging from a wire, or where what looks like light sources are visible on some shots. However, I would agree that many of the claims of fakery are likely to be false. I do believe "we" have been to the Moon. I am working on other projects and don't have time to present a mega-thread - which is what would be needed to properly analyse enough material to decide where I'm at. At this point I am open minded but have doubts about some footage.



Don't take me the wrong way. My biggest bone of contention with NASA is wasting money. I disagree with many policies about how resources are used. But I am amazed and impressed by lots of the work. I have even considered retraining by taking a planetary sciences masters degree. Why else would I be so fascinated by all this material. I am also keen to learn whatever I can as some of you have knowledge about space exploration that I don't have. I am an honest enquirer and may even be researching this stuff academically in a few years.

Cordially

Pimander

Originally posted by amongus

Originally posted by Gridrebel
reply to post by amongus

 

Like the OP said, the software he was using is not cheap. I'm pretty sure the software would cost several thousand dollars. It's not a free for all or anything like photoshop. Maybe he the OP could identify the name of the software again for those who missed it in the video. Then the doubters could purchase the software, obtain original NASA photos and try this disclosure technique for themselves.

Thats what im asking for...what is the name of it, and how is the processing special. I dont give a snip that the op claims that is expensive......expensive software can be buggy just like anything else.

yes, please tell us the name of the software you used OP. there are hundreds of editing programs out there and just because its high end software does not mean much if others can't test it out for them self.

Originally posted by Pimander
If Maurice Chatelain and others say there was something else up there, they might not be lying.

And why should anybody believe what Maurice Chatelain claims about "Apollo secrets"?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Pimander
If Maurice Chatelain and others say there was something else up there, they might not be lying.

And why should anybody believe what Maurice Chatelain claims about "Apollo secrets"?

why shouldn't they?

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Pimander
If Maurice Chatelain and others say there was something else up there, they might not be lying.

And why should anybody believe what Maurice Chatelain claims about "Apollo secrets"?

why shouldn't they?

Basically because there's no evidence he had any access to any particularly unique or 'inside' information. He was just repeating what he'd read in the 'National Enquirer', for all we know.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by JimOberg
And why should anybody believe what Maurice Chatelain claims about "Apollo secrets"?

Why shouldn't they?

Basically because there's no evidence he had any access to any particularly unique or 'inside' information. He was just repeating what he'd read in the 'National Enquirer', for all we know.

NO evidence is evidence of nothing as I have already indicated. Do we have evidence he ahd no access?

You post about this as though you know something about this. He worked for NASA didn't he? What was his specific role and what were his responsibilities?

Originally posted by Pimander
[snip]
That does not mean that archived footage was all legitimate. It may have been but possibly was not.

This kind of thinking is the biggest flaw of individuals who align themselves with unsubstantiated claims. Until you can come up with evidence to support negative thinking which would then be positive, of course, why continue to be a conspirator? Especially with the never-ending empty claims of lunar this or lunar that.

Having said that because I don't accept that anyone at this late date can see anything that is not natural on the moon. No self-respecting "alien" race would build structures of any king or engage in "mining operations" knowing full well that we either can see them if they're on the nearside or we can and we have sent craft to map the moon's surface including the farside.

However, there is NASA footage showing unknown objects flitting over the lunar surface.