More and better evidence of NASA photo manipulation

I made this reply in another thread about "the alien base" on Mars. I really think it's deserving of its own thread, but I cannot post as I don't have enough replies. Maybe a long-time member or a mod could help me out with that. Anyway I am posting this again here because in this post there actually is more and better evidence of NASA photo manipulation.

What has ATS become? I have lurked here near every day for a long time but rarely post, and am still leary of doing so. Not many on this forum think for themselves anymore. Not many do any research for themselves anymore. And I think the ones who do just smile to themselves knowingly and aren't at all bothered by what the sheeple think. I hate to use that term ATS but many of you are just that.

This thread, as it was posted, is outlandish. It is a hoax, as has now been determined. That thing that guy thinks is an alien base? Well it's a rock, and how dare he and how crazy. And let's see how many ways we can make jokes about the crazy guy who thinks a rock is some kind of base.

And they have you.

You, ATS do all the debunking and provide the "nothing to see here" attitudes that any supposed PTB would want and hope to encourage.

And they put it right in front of your faces.

Here is the second image from the article posted. It is a panoramic image from Spirit on Sol 1353.



Oddly enough I don't see the "supposed" alien base at all. I do see a big white smudge, I wonder what that is?

Image artifacts surely, but what's this?



Hmm, another smudge, over the same area of the picture.

What is being smudged?

Well here are two more images from Spirit's navigation camera. They do seem to lend the object in question more detail, but they still look a bit smudged IMHO... And the object is also, for whatever reason, the same shape as the "white shading", which may or may not be smudging, on the panoramic photos.

Again, image artifacts to be sure.

The area in question is at the left edge of the trough in the right middle-ground.







This is the process I went through upon discovering this thread, and it has nothing to do with the ridiculous alien base that is a rock. I would have never looked at those pictures without seeing this post, and while I cannot draw any definite conclusions based on these photos, it is still interesting, and even a bit reminiscent of the opening words of the article...

"Did elites sought to "hide truth in plain sight" as Dr. Michael Salla has alleged in matters concerning their association with alien interests?"

Please ATS realize that the information that is out there is not going to be handed to you on a silver platter. But if you are open and aware, sometimes these "crazy hoaxes" can lead you to something that is a little closer to the truth.

Originally posted by 0bserver1
I think this guy really has something that needs attention..!

No, this guy is seeking attention...

Not only are his techniques (and I use the word loosely) wrong, buts he's also analysing the wrong data. But he already knows that.

As I said in a previous thread, he's using images edited by NASA (which they freely admit), to prove they're edited. DUH!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

ASU hereby grants permission for news media, educators, personal, and scientific users to download and use individual ASU-produced Apollo images and their complete associated captions if applicable for personal, educational, and research uses without express permission.

What part of that you dont understand? Also this:

...or use it in any manner not expressly authorized.

You should probably get familiar with copyrights and laws associated with them.

Here is the Pete Conrad picture.
www.nasa.gov...

Here is Sanders ELA picture.


I found the same exact jpg shapes using MS Paint using the paint can.


We know for a fact that the picture has been, to use the polite term, "touched up". But why? Not for aesthetic reasons! What is that "fat J" at the left side? Is it a joke? Will we find other hidden letters in the NASA images?

Could it be a another whistle-blower?

Sander thanks for this.

For an explanation of ELA and a chance to try it with your own images go here :

errorlevelanalysis.com...


Regards,

QV.

For those that are interested...

I only got as far as the first image in the video. The image that the OP analysed was:

JPEG

A better, larger, non-edited for publication version, which should have been used would be:

TIFF

It's amazing how different the results are if the source images are used instead...

I can't see the point in examining the rest.

reply to post by BagBing


It's ok, the OP will ignore you.

Were you around for his last thread?

He "analysed" stitched together panoramic images and was shocked when he found manipulation!

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by 0bserver1

 

We didn't bring up the copyright issue.In fact nobody can make any kind of computer aided analysis of any Apollo moon landing image from the internet. This is the very thing these moon hoax people just don't understand.

"Special experimental software' OF A JPEG INTERNET SERVER IMAGE!???

Ludicrous.

Get it yet?

As silly as the birther "document experts" examing a scanned copy of a document and claiming the original document (that they never even saw) is a forgery.

The op has a predetermined idea, and he manipulates data to fit that idea, whilst ignoring the obvious!

reply to post by NuminousCosmos


The AMS process originally was intended for medical purposes, That is true but after numerous tests it was decided to re-write the programme. AMS simply cannot create images with the required finer details.
For medical purposes it therefore is not good enough. However AMS can also be used in other fields. Although it cannot deliver enhancements with fine details it can be used to reveal hidden data in a black / dark / dim photo photomaterial (and video).

My software, or I should I say, the software I am currently allowed to use for testing (I do not own it), is nothing magical. It is not a super programme, very complicated and not very user friendly but it it still in beta phase.
Many people do not believe in what AMS or the new released AMS-D and AMS-V can achieve. Look at programmes like photo-shop. There are numerous commercial applications used by scientists and law enforcement agencies. So why should AMS not have a chance in proving itself? Sooner or later these programmes will become availabe somewhere. Commercial, as a plugin or perhaps even as Open Source when no one wants to have / buy it.

I work daily with digital law enforcement applications, hard - and software and I know more about image manipulation than most people. So never question my intentions or know-how. My colleagues are closely watching my activities on the internet and they know what I am capable of.

Sander

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Were you around for his last thread?

Oh yes!

It was me who found the original site that created the panoramas which were then used to create analygraphs (3D images), including details of the software used to manipulate the original images!!!

I look back with fond memories...

Originally posted by 1967sander
So never question my intentions or know-how.

Why not? We do not know your intentions (although it appears to be blame NASA for covering up silly "buildings" on the moon from compressed jpeg's and as to your "know how" it does not appear at all impressive.

My colleagues are closely watching my activities on the internet and they know what I am capable of.

They are laughing at your silly claims actually.

Originally posted by 1967sander
reply to post by NuminousCosmos

 

I work daily with digital law enforcement applications, hard - and software and I know more about image manipulation than most people. So never question my intentions or know-how. My colleagues are closely watching my activities on the internet and they know what I am capable of.

Sander

Care to provide some credentials? No... I thought so. I'd love to know who hires someone to work in image tech who doesn't even know how panoramic images are done.

reply to post by 1967sander

So why should AMS not have a chance in proving itself?

Exactly.Why not perform the same operations on various terrestrial photos with a known history? In science, this is called a "control group." It is up to you to prove the validity of your method.

Personally, I thought the video was rubbish sorry, many years ago I watched either a series of video or one about an hour long, and the images that were shown were the originals due to the fact that in those days in the 60's the cameras they used then produced a cross not sure what you call them but they were on all the photos and definately the originals.

Anyway he cleaned them up and put the colour back into them as the altered images were shown as only grey, the images were spectacular, there were lots of buildings and a very strange looking mother ship too, the buildings were huge, and the best part was the sky and the horizon, it showed the stars but even better were what I can only describe as huge portals perhaps used for time travel, obviously I really don't know what I'm talking about as I DON'T know what they are but they are the same as seen in starwars tv show, quite wide, wide is not big enough, huge and lots of them all vertical going up and past the moon.

I only wish I could share with ats the delight I had when I watched it but unfortunately I had a virus that wiped my hard drive and lost everything, if anyone finds this exciting material would you pleas u2m so I can watch it again thanks.

reply to post by missiongal


Is this what you mean by crosses?

Hasselblad EDC (Electric Data Camera)
This is a specially designed version of the motorized 500EL intended for use on the surface of the moon, where the first lunar pictures were taken on 20 July 1969 by Neil Armstrong. The camera is equipped with a specially designed Biogon lens with a focal length of 60 mm, with a polarization filter mounted on the lens. A glass plate (Reseau-Plate), provided with reference crosses which are recorded on the film during exposure, is in contact with the film, and these crosses can be seen on all the pictures taken on the moon from 1969 to 1972. The 12 HEDC cameras used on the surface of the moon were left there. Only the film magazines were brought back.

As for cities on the moon, wouldn't the LRO have picked those up?

No stars in the sky could be imaged from the surface of the moon on the Apollo film, there is however debate, perhaps you decide, that Venus was imaged from the moon on the Apollo 14 mission while Shepherd was rolling off unexposed film to complete the cartridge.

baut forums provides some links, one being Apollo Hoax

Check it out.

Originally posted by 1967sander
reply to post by NuminousCosmos

 

The AMS process originally was intended for medical purposes, That is true but after numerous tests it was decided to re-write the programme. AMS simply cannot create images with the required finer details.
For medical purposes it therefore is not good enough.

You never addressed my post in the previous thread regarding this. I looked at the journal articles you requested me to, and they don't seem to back up what you're saying here and you're still being as vague as you possibly can about your methods.

Many people do not believe in what AMS or the new released AMS-D and AMS-V can achieve.

Abbreviations aside, I haven't seen anything from your AMS software that I haven't been able to keep up with, even with little or no information about what it's doing. I've managed to replicate within the same ball park most things I've seen from your work I think.

I work daily with digital law enforcement applications, hard - and software and I know more about image manipulation than most people. So never question my intentions or know-how. My colleagues are closely watching my activities on the internet and they know what I am capable of.

Knowing more than most people isn't that hard. After a few weeks of reading you will know more than 90 - 96% of people. I just haven't seen the evidence in how you communicate of this vast knowledge, and I have tried to engage you on a technical level. Unfortunately, most of your responses have been the equivolent of a Sherlock Holmes villain leaving the room with a glib remark.

I've worked with people I consider genius before and, although at first I might not see it, within a few days or even a few hours they normally say something or have a way of looking at something that blows my mind. It really shouldn't be too hard for you to say something that amazes a junior.

I understand that some people will support your work since they agree with your opinion/findings. However, opinion and findings aside ... I don't think either part of a debate should be using your work for support.

Unfortunately, as with the last thread, I still have to politely declare shenannigans.

Originally posted by 1967sander
reply to post by NuminousCosmos

 

The AMS process originally was intended for medical purposes, That is true but after numerous tests it was decided to re-write the programme. AMS simply cannot create images with the required finer details.
For medical purposes it therefore is not good enough.

In other words, it's crap...

However AMS can also be used in other fields. Although it cannot deliver enhancements with fine details it can be used to reveal hidden data in a black / dark / dim photo photomaterial (and video).

You mean you can just make stuff up?

My software, or I should I say, the software I am currently allowed to use for testing (I do not own it), is nothing magical. It is not a super programme, very complicated and not very user friendly but it it still in beta phase.
Many people do not believe in what AMS or the new released AMS-D and AMS-V can achieve. Look at programmes like photo-shop. There are numerous commercial applications used by scientists and law enforcement agencies.

Fair enough

So why should AMS not have a chance in proving itself? Sooner or later these programmes will become availabe somewhere. Commercial, as a plugin or perhaps even as Open Source when no one wants to have / buy it.

I work daily with digital law enforcement applications, hard - and software and I know more about image manipulation than most people. So never question my intentions or know-how. My colleagues are closely watching my activities on the internet and they know what I am capable of.

Sander

If you work with this daily, GOD help the inocent...

As long as the software is not officially released you must understand that I cannot answer any question about used techniques or algorithms.

For those who think that I use errorlevelanalysis.com I have uploaded 3 samples I made today. The software I use is far more sensitive than the webbased version. One image is real. two are fake.

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

Greetz,

Sander

reply to post by 1967sander


If a skilled photographer were to have created the second photograph using a razor blade and paste and then rephotographed it properly seventy years ago, how would running a scan of an n-th generation print through the software reveal anything? Just curious.

reply to post by DJW001


Its now clear to me that you just want to be funny.

hahaha what a joke.