Do these manipulated Apollo images hide an unknown civilization?

reply to post by game over man

video.google.com...

There is a reference in the above video to glass being 10x stronger than steel, the video is also quite interesting.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Let's see what happens if we use some cheap software on a digital image we can relate to. These are screenshots of the MS program that comes "free" with Windows 7. Note the sliders to the right, and the artifacts each of these changes make to the image:





If you bump the contrast and zoom in, you can make a word appear where there was none!



Another little tweak and the shadows take on a life of their own!



Zoom in on all this noise and you can create all sorts of imaginary things. But wait, this was a (public domain) digital image. What happens if you take a film image and scan it. This process creates its own artifacts. Here's a photograph of yours truly shortly after a face plant in some nice fresh snow:



The bright background causes some interesting problems when you adjust the contrast:



Does that halo look familiar? What about the inky blackness of space? What happens when you zoom in on it? (This is a digital photo taken with a Nikon D3000, 1/250 of a second, f/11)



(Look familiar?)





Now let's zoom in:



The blue "atmosphere" is due to chromatic aberration. Refractor telescopes do that. But look at the space around it: SPACE MONSTERS!

Try it yourselves.

Lol the "buildings" under the sticky tape are just air bubbles under the tape.

The OP has refuted most criticism's here and people keep repeating them without reading everything here. It's sad that debated devolve as such.

Great work and post OP, although skeptical and would like to know more, I applaud your work.

As for the free image software debunk post a couple replies before mine? Come on, your not using that as proof of anything are you? Most of what you described is something your imagining because its not apparent when looking at your images.
Besides its safe to say any cheap/free program would create more artifacts due to how cheaply it applies the technology. Your argument holds no logic. Use a good software program and show me how it can create blue men or hidden objects that seem man-made.

reply to post by EspyderMan

The OP has refuted most criticism's here....

The OP has not.

Wait.....then, this means you believe there are *hidden* "unknown civilizations" on the Moon? Merely from APollo images? (And, not all of the Apollo images, either. What about the DAC 16-mm cameras, and the live TV video...recorded of course, so we can view it today, decades later)??

Or, what about the latest images, just years ago, form orbiting satellites with cameras?? Where are these "unknown civilizations" in those images?

reply to post by DJW001


I have read these artifact explanations dozens of times. First of all I do not use low quality images. The last image of the astronaut is 8 Mb large. The other images between 3 and 4 Mb. Most images in my videos have not been zoomed in on. They have not been enlarged but kept there original size at all times. When I zoom in on an image this is done by a loop tool and not a zoomed in photo. Finally, I do not use photo-editors. You clearly have read too much replies of these so-called artifact experts and are just repeating what I have heard hundreds of times.

Greetz,

Sander

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.

Before I do anything else with this thread I must address the first 3 minutes or so of the video. If someone has already dome what I am about to do, please forgive the redundancy. It is not always convenient to peruse many pages of thread prior to posting.

The "hill" in question, the one with the steps is enormous. Any living creature using the steps the OP described would have to be several hundred feet tall. I am 99% certain this is the Northern Massif from the Apollo 17 landing. This little hill with the table or small building on the top of it is several kilometres long and, though I don't know the exact height, you can make an intelligent guess if you know it is at least 4 km in length.

So, I was feeling a bit "irked" at the suggestion that what was being covered up was something it could not possibly be. I felt the OP took some rather generous liberties with his interpretations of what things might , in truth, be.I do not mean to detract from the work he is trying to do. I say, fine, do the work. Demonstrate clearly the very high possibility of image manipulation. Leave it to the ever transparent NASA to clear up any questions we may have about any differences there seem to be between images with no modifications and those WITH modifications.

[On a different note, please know that at the bottom of this massif, there is a colossal opening. as in --"HUGE". It is not shown in the image our OP used unfortunately. The landing crew of Schmitt and Cernan made a bee-line for it after they landed. It was very clearly the main objective of the whole trip. It was felt by some at NASA that the opening may have been unnatural in some way. Knowing this, now go to the NASA archives and just TRY to find all of the great pictures they must have taken after giving the whole flight this main task of seeing this opening first hand. Better yet, read the transcript of the astronauts conversation while they stood in front of this opening and then compare it to the pictures NASA presents. Prepare to be completely amazed....but not in a very nice way.]

reply to post by Malkuth


Would you care to substantiate this?

....On a different note, please know that at the bottom of this massif, there is a colossal opening...... The landing crew of Schmitt and Cernan made a bee-line for it after they landed.

For surely, there will be indications of the veracity of this from the ALSJ source, as well as others. But, ALSJ is a place to conveniently begin. Looking forward to your research and evidence of the assertion.


(Lest this be tagged "off-topic", it seems to tie in with the OP's title of "unknown civilizations", if I am understanding the implications contained in that tidbit).......

reply to post by 1967sander


Good video added there and interesting post.

I just had a little brain wave not a big one but just something id like to share. I was just thinking, we all continue to find out if such industries are lying to us, like Nasa and so on and maybe that is the case, they obviously hold information that most people do not see or know about but my concern is and it is a concern is that mayb, just maybe there are a few people who was enlightened to seeing and knowing and maybe even having the answer to why we are here or how it happened or if we have a future on this planet or another and what if, what if the answers the ygot back where not good. As in, there was something they understood that kind of destroyed our concept of human life, that if known may have put the entire world in a state of depression? People seem to think there is always going to be a big great answer to solve mans problems or give us more, I have a big feeling this isnt the fact.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Swills

 

He used some bad ass software, AMS auto multi layer segmentation software, on these photos, and most of, if not all of us do not have access to such software.

Oh....how "convenient" for the OP.


Now then....who can tell us what kind of image manipulation software was available in 1969, 1970, 1971.....etc?

Surely, for any organization committed to *hiding evidence* from Apollo photos that date from the actual historical records and time-frame, they would have had to have very sophisticated computer processing abilities in the 1970s?? I seem to have miss that tidbit from the historical records of the era.

Imagine the immense *team* that wold need to be employed to do this, building a computer that didn't yet exist, writing software that was still a dream for Gates and Wozniak and Jobs.....et al.

Wow! What skilled and genius professionals, hiding all those skills for so many decades.

Are you actually implying that at that time it would have been harder to manipulate photos...than to actually go to the moon? Are you implying that going to the moon would be easier than manipulating photos...sine they did go to the moon but you don't seem to think they could have "doctored some photos" but well THATS JUST TOO HARD....what?

Actually physically and successfully going and landing on the moon and successfully making it back is leaps and bound more difficult than doctoring photos, or even doing a holywood mock-up faked moon landing...

I mean since people love to quote Occom and his Razor....WHAT REALLY is the more simplistic answer here?

reply to post by ProudBird


your so ignorant, half of the most "advanced" technology today was design as far back as the 1960s.
now go back and re-think and re-evaluate everything you just said my friend

I leave the rest of the discussion to you and the others as this leads to nowhere. BELIEVE IT OR NOT.
Now I concentrate on making videos with material never seen before, to be uploaded soon on youtube.

Greetz,

Sander

Originally posted by 1967sander

My file is older and still has the original signature.

Greetz,

Sander

No it isn't! (if you're refering to the 1998 date - that's irrelevant)

The image you are using is a later processed version.

Yours has (at the very least) been contrast enhanced - you can tell by the blown highlights.

I have nowhere to upload any examples. If anyone can suggest a free hosting site that does NOT involve getting lots of spam, please fire away.

reply to post by notfromthisworld


I guess you haven't read all the way through the thread, yet.

Stopped at the post of mine you replied to, and unleashed?

Now, go read the entire thread, and re-think your initial reactions......

reply to post by 1967sander


To the OP - Great post and video... you know why most of all?

You reserved your OPINION of what you thought you'd found and just laid out the facts.

The problem that so many people that try to prove coverups and conspiracies is that they set out looking for something specific and then try to make all evidence point to that thing their looking for.

Any investigation needs to start just looking for clues or oddities - not that point to a specific end, but let the gathered evidence lead YOU to the end...

Great job.

Does this look like a mouse head to anyone else? I put a red box around it. To OP, nice work and very interesting. Not sure where I stand on this theory, but more food for thought.

reply to post by JibbyJedi


Especially with their moon landing! =D

Here we go again. Dozens if not more threads of the same kind of misuse of software or naive use of software the user does not understand. Some of them huge.

OP, if this is what rings your bell you should look up John Lear's threads.

Why anyone is surprised by what they see knowing this is digital copies taken from film and then the gross misuse of filters to create false evidence where none exists. These moon photos are often many photos stitched the old way with tape, with each piece being slightly different. No exposure or aperture locks then to accommodate stitching. They were taped together laid out on a table or floor and then rephotographed. Do you really expect perfect images?

I hope the misrepresentations are not purposeful as they are on some of the bogus websites.

Originally posted by DJW001
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Let's see what happens if we use some cheap software on a digital image we can relate to. These are screenshots of the MS program that comes "free" with Windows 7. Note the sliders to the right, and the artifacts each of these changes make to the image:

If you bump the contrast and zoom in, you can make a word appear where there was none!

Another little tweak and the shadows take on a life of their own!

Zoom in on all this noise and you can create all sorts of imaginary things. But wait, this was a (public domain) digital image. What happens if you take a film image and scan it. This process creates its own artifacts. Here's a photograph of yours truly shortly after a face plant in some nice fresh snow:

The bright background causes some interesting problems when you adjust the contrast:

Does that halo look familiar? What about the inky blackness of space? What happens when you zoom in on it? (This is a digital photo taken with a Nikon D3000, 1/250 of a second, f/11)

(Look familiar?)

Now let's zoom in:

The blue "atmosphere" is due to chromatic aberration. Refractor telescopes do that. But look at the space around it: SPACE MONSTERS!

Try it yourselves.

edit on 26-10-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

Wait so what are you getting at. All i got from that is that you have cheap software.

This guys tech is not sold in stores, unlike your cheap editor and digital camera.

Add on: You said it was cheap