Do these manipulated Apollo images hide an unknown civilization?

I do not see some of the images in the OP's video as being anything more than artifacts appearing after the panoramic composite was made.
However, the last image of the reflected astronaut has always seemed "off" to me.

I do believe that image was "manufactured" and the astronaut added tot he reflection in the visor.
I don't think they are hiding anything there, I think thet just created a photo for press release.
It's a moving picture, almost to perfect.

I think there are several pictures that NASA has edited to make them more "presentable" for the press.



I will add the "blue man" in the OP's vid gave me the creeps!

Where's the video of this guy doing this to the original photographs? Oh there isn't one. Too bad.

Dank je wel Sander, erg interessant.

Before we say NASA is hiding an unknown civilization on the moon you have to clear up the other question of did we go to the moon or not? I guess the OP has answered that question by claiming we went there and are now hiding a whole civilization. Anyone know the next theory? When we get to the moon and there is no civilization its because NASA moved it. Maybe NASA has a good reason for hiding it. Maybe the inhabitants of the moon asked NASA not to let the world know they were there and in return we were allowed toke take some 'precious' stones in return. Maybe they left earth for some peace and quiet.

reply to post by 1967sander


Explanation: Uhmmm?

I shall focus on 'the best' evidence you provided and attempt to debunk it ok!

Here is the picture I found that looks suspiciously the same as the one at the end of the video in the OP!



And apparently it is a picture of Buzz Aldrin taken by Neil Armstrong and here is a CGI RECREATION [just for fun ] of what Buzz would have been seeing ...



Sourced from here ... SynthEyes Makes Tracks on the Moon in the IMAX Feature "Magnificent Desolation" (by Malvern, PA. October 10, 2005) [ssontech.com]

And here is proof that the 'little white man' didn't need to hold the camera ...





The 'little white man"'s shadow is distorted because its a reflected image off of a curved reflective surface like a convex mirror ... aka as the EVA Helmet.





Causing distortions in the image such as these ...









And the 'little white man' is square because they wore huge blocky backpacks...



.. and the blockyness is EXACTLY what is being enhanced by 'your' program!

Personal Disclosure: I think the claims made in the vid to do with that specific picture are a little over the moon!

Nicolas: you may have a point. Generally when stitching images together there has to be color matching etc done ... and some work done to 'fit' the images together transformation wise.

Regarding Lucis ... It is, as said, basically a local equalization operation with some changes, but it has many of the same properties. It's okayish (though I was $95ish off the price) control wise, though it comes with some sliders for clean up etc ... The app also comes with things like unsharp masks etc ... which, again, are very common tools and about 100 years old.

I have nothing against the OP, and I'm just a nobody, but processes like local equalization, as said before, do push the brightness of nearby pixels an obscene amount even if the difference is incredibly small if it's desired. It also has a tendency to hit the noise pretty hard and turn blacks to greys at times. To me this is why it's so important to actually have a complete process ... especially since (at least I've learnt) there's things you should do along side this type of process ... and who knows if the OP has tried any of that.

This is a pic (albeit compressed) of bokeh.
Bokeh

Here is two versions put through a similar process which have become larger.
Image #1
Image #2

This is a close up. Notice how crazy pattern based it looks, and how small amounts of variation go a bit crazy.

QE-SR, which allows me to perform super resolution on small sized images (screenshots) and the Lucis Science Application to dive through thousands of contrast layers.

From:signal.forumotion.com...

The OP is also quoted as stating the application allows diving through 'thousands of contrast layers' in this thread when applying the process to UFOs. Perhaps English isn't a first language, but I wouldn't really be describing this that way. Also, am not really sure about enlarging a video clip and applying this process to it and assuming the detail in there is completely accurate. Though maybe this was sometime ago,people say odd things sometimes, or maybe the OP knows something I don't!

Sorry to barrage but again here ...

Angelina Jolie #1

Angelina Jolie #2

Note the damage the blacks take, and the extreme contrast added into the person's tattoos. I'm going to openly note I've pushed these values and incredible amount in this post, but at the same time it really highlights that this kind of maths is going to allow even two incredibly closely related values to contrast like a medieval knight at a sci-fi convention. Also note the 'haloing' around Jolie's body, and how this process tends to favor bright pixels, which means that reflections and glows (ie the astronauts) are going to go crazy with something like this, and it *loves* blocks.

Take what you will from it, and maybe OP will clarify for me and change my mind on some of this. /

@ 4:00 mins.the image under the tape looks like a "Sphynx" like structure. You can see what appears to be two paws outstretched in front of a large body & a smaller head. Very interesting especially considering the steps on the
pyramid. Hmmm, Pyramid+Steps+Sphynx reminds you of what?

reply to post by OmegaLogos


What an incredible BS!

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

This is a picture placed inside a picture! There's no doubt about that. All the other samples you present have absolutely nothing to do with the manipulation of this particular image.

Greetz,

Sander

reply to post by Pinke


I do not make use of local equalization software. It is ridiculous to claim that I did. I used this:

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).
Perhaps the next generation Photoshop software also will use these techniques? I do not know that for sure.
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.

Through many years of experience I have can tell what is fake and what is not. I deliberately never touch any image which has NOT been uploaded by NASA or ESA. I always check the md5 checksum and the NASA signatures available before I do any processing.

Greetz,

Sander

I wonder if it NAZI's on the moon...

Originally posted by abeverage
I wonder if it NAZI's on the moon...

"Wait, what's that? on the white block man? It looks like a Hitler mustache!"

reply to post by Pinke


I do not make use of the cheap Lucis software but use the science application which is expensive to say the least.

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

Originally posted by 1967sander
reply to post by Pinke

 

I do not make use of local equalization software. It is ridiculous to claim that I did. I used this:

Are you saying my tonal adjustment earlier in this thread does't resemble your own in any way?

Perhaps the next generation Photoshop software also will use these techniques? I do not know that for sure.

Matlab and various other programs/languages work just as well. I use more than photoshop. I don't see how this stops you sharing your method?

Basically both applications I use can analyze images on single pixel level. You will find the answer on Google!

I have plenty of information on Lucis. I don't see what makes AMS particularly special at this point! I'd be curious why you believe it is very different.

Originally posted by 1967sander
reply to post by OmegaLogos

 

What an incredible BS!

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

This is a picture placed inside a picture! There's no doubt about that. All the other samples you present have absolutely nothing to do with the manipulation of this particular image.

Greetz,

Sander

Nonesense. Once again, you're not using the original data.

Here: www.lpi.usra.edu...

Analysising a manipulated image and coming to the conclusion it's manipulated doesn't really tell us anything...

All you are seeing are jpeg artifacts.

reply to post by 1967sander


I'm still calling "bunk" on you, here.

And THIS post is one you should rad very carefully:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Be aware, this is not to imply you are doing this video as a way to fool others....no, you are most likely sincere, and have yourself been fooled by an over-reliance on imagination, and spurred by the absolute confidence in your beliefs and convictions of some *nefarious* NASA shenanigans.....where none actually exist.

To re-iterate.....you used in many cases photos that had been manipulated.....but we all know the reasons for the manipulations. Not to *hide* or *cover-up* anything, but to make photos into presentations for publication, of many different reasons. (Panoramas, cropping, enlargements, etc).

You have convinced yourself of a "HOAX" where none exists.

You should re-evaluate you starting premises, and your ingrained bias.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


I have a similar background to yourself , and i to have never heard of it .......hmmmmmmm
isnt that strange?
is this the software?

luc.adventist.org...


or is it lucis art3 ...a plug in for photoshop
?
www.lucisart.com...

reply to post by BagBing


Simple, my image is much older than your sample:

Filename: [C:\SPACE\Apollo Missions\NASA tampering\GPN-2000-001211.jpg]
Filesize: [8583223] Bytes

Start Offset: 0x00000000
*** Marker: SOI (xFFD8) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000000

*** Marker: APP0 (xFFE0) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000002
length = 16
identifier = [JFIF]
version = [1.2]
density = 300 x 300 DPI (dots per inch)
thumbnail = 0 x 0

*** Marker: APP13 (xFFED) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000014
length = 7658
Identifier = [Photoshop 3.0]
8BIM: [0x03E9] Name=[] Len=[0x0078]
8BIM: [0x03ED] Name=[] Len=[0x0010]
8BIM: [0x040D] Name=[] Len=[0x0004]
8BIM: [0x03F3] Name=[] Len=[0x0008]
8BIM: [0x040A] Name=[] Len=[0x0001]
8BIM: [0x2710] Name=[] Len=[0x000A]
8BIM: [0x03F5] Name=[] Len=[0x0048]
8BIM: [0x03F8] Name=[] Len=[0x0070]
8BIM: [0x0408] Name=[] Len=[0x0010]
8BIM: [0x0414] Name=[] Len=[0x0004]
8BIM: [0x040C] Name=[] Len=[0x1BD5]
8BIM: [0x0406] Name=[] Len=[0x0007]
Photoshop Save As Quality = [12]
Photoshop Save Format = [Standard]

*** Marker: APP2 (xFFE2) ***
OFFSET: 0x00001E00
length = 3160
Identifier = [ICC_PROFILE]
ICC Profile:
Marker Number = 1 of 1
Profile Size : 3144 bytes
Preferred CMM Type : 'Lino' (0x4C696E6F)
Profile Version : 0.2.1.0 (0x02100000)
Profile Device/Class : Display Device profile ('mntr' (0x6D6E7472))
Data Colour Space : rgbData ('RGB ' (0x52474220))
Profile connection space (PCS) : 'XYZ ' (0x58595A20)
Profile creation date : 1998-02-09 06:49:00
Profile file signature : 'acsp' (0x61637370)
Primary platform : Microsoft Corporation ('MSFT' (0x4D534654))
Profile flags : 0x00000000
Profile flags > Profile not embedded
Profile flags > Profile can't be used independently of embedded
Device Manufacturer : 'IEC ' (0x49454320)
Device Model : 'sRGB' (0x73524742)
Device attributes : 0x00000000_00000000
Device attributes > Reflective
Device attributes > Glossy
Device attributes > Media polarity = negative
Device attributes > Black & white media
Rendering intent : Perceptual
Profile creator : 'HP ' (0x48502020)
Profile ID : 0x00000000_00000000_00000000

*** Marker: COM (Comment) (xFFFE) ***
OFFSET: 0x00002A5A
Comment length = 38
Comment=File written by Adobe Photoshop. 5.0

This is your image:

Filename: [C:\Users\Sander\Downloads\5873.jpg]
Filesize: [4694977] Bytes

Start Offset: 0x00000000
*** Marker: SOI (xFFD8) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000000

*** Marker: APP0 (xFFE0) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000002
length = 16
identifier = [JFIF]
version = [1.2]
density = 300 x 300 DPI (dots per inch)
thumbnail = 0 x 0

*** Marker: APP1 (xFFE1) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000014
length = 8817
Identifier = [Exif]
Identifier TIFF = 0x[49492A00 08000000]
Endian = Intel (little)
TAG Mark x002A = 0x002A

EXIF IFD0 @ Absolute 0x00000026
Dir Length = 0x000E
[Orientation ] = Row 0: top, Col 0: left
[XResolution ] = 3000000/10000
[YResolution ] = 3000000/10000
[ResolutionUnit ] = Inch
[Software ] = "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows"
[DateTime ] = "2009:07:14 15:24:01"
[ExifOffset ] = @ 0x00FC
Offset to Next IFD = 0x00000128

Both files have been opened, processed and saved in Photoshop version CS3, My file is older and still has the original signature.

Greetz,

Sander

reply to post by ProudBird


So if these photos were edited to make them more 'presentable', where are the originals?

I would prefer to see them in the original format if that's possible. That would be cool.

I see this thread has taken off

I haven't read through all the replies yet so I dunno if the OP has posted yet but for all of us who are curious about his software he did post this on the YT page;

Lucis Science, AMS (scientific application, not yet available on the market. I was lucky enough to obtain it / have permission to use it for betatesting but not distribute). There are however a few papers written on the software and special designed algorithms. Basically both applications analyze images on single pixel level.
Compare it 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.

reply to post by muzzleflash

I would prefer to see them in the original format....

Well, that was partly my point. The other thing to consider (as pointed out) is that today even the originals have been scanned and digitized in order to share them. This leads to various artifacts as a result...so, just grabbing anything off of the Internet is going to be subject to these same *anomalies*, once you then bastardize it with some additional software photo-manipulation program.

You get the *noise* from the methods used to copy and share the original....and then you make a YouTube video and call that *noise* an "unknown civilization" on the Moon.