Dont buy that for a second...if your going to fake multiple moon landings your going to do it under cover a la somewhere like Area 51 out of sight of anyone and anything in a secure building to reduce as much as possible anything to hint at a coverup.
As for the Moon Landings being faked im sorry im a sceptic

Thanks for the link. I've been trying to mess around with that to get something like the OP, but due to it being a better quality image haven't had much luck either. Of course I'm not exactly any good at image manipulation, and don't have photoshop. Though I do have GIMP, and this is what I got from it.


I got some nice rectangles and so on, but no building shapes. Also I noticed that with the brightness and contrast changed, it seems you can see what look like stars, though that was with the settings virtually maxed.

reply to post by macr59

---

Good post macr59, strrd and flggd, there are indeed things at the horizon in that picture as also in many others that need special attention.

reply to post by internos

---

Always enjoy your input internos, great work as usual.
It definitely shows clearly that there are things at the horizon that needed some airbrushing back then in order to prevent that we could see them, no doubt about that.



Those structures/buildings are indeed where it is all about in my opinion MrVertigo.

www.projectcamelot.net...

Here is a very interesting testimony about buildings on the moon.


Source; The book "Disclosure" from the Disclosure project.

Here is more of him.

www.ufocasebook.com...



Can you explain to me why those 'compression' distortions isn’t scattered over the whole horizon?


[edit on 6/8/08 by spacevisitor]

Aren't they all over the horizon?

A repost of the negative image posted by krzyspmac on top of page 2:

I'm leaning in the direction of JPEG artifacts, but could someone tell me why the entire sky isn't covered in artifacts? I do see some of it at the very top, but not in the middle.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by Dronetek]

It looks like some of you are working with a highly compressed JPEG and others aren't.

I downloaded the one from the original post and don't see any structures at all. I've run it through various Photoshop processes and found nothing unusual.

The structures that everyone is seeing look like JPEG artifacts (as others have said).

reply to post by Dronetek

---

Because a black uniform area compresses well. It's a big black rectangle, not many informations are stored. A dark gradient with irregularities compresses badly, Another possibility is that this image was a GIF at some point, with color quantization eliminating the least visible, darkest colors.

This is the Apollo 11 mission. There are countless images of the landing site (Mare Tranquillitatis) taken from Earth, from Earth orbit, from Lunar orbit, and from the actual landing site. There were images taken from before manned space flight and there are still images of that region being captured now.

Perhaps it would be prudent to broaden the scope of your investigation to include additioinal imagery of the area in question?

Please note that the "artifacts" are beyond the horizon. The horizon is so many miles away. To tower above the horizon the "artifacts" would have to be such and such a hight. (big)

"Artifacts" that large should be visible in other images. Or, conversely, the removal of "artifacts" that large from existing images might leave traces detectable with the modern software you people are using here.

Interesting find OP.

I think I recognise that horizon as facing West in Central Park. I have been known to be wrong though.

Maybe one day we will actually send a man to the Moon.

It looks to me that they used a copy that was not the best (a bad scanning job, maybe, due to the left area blue tint), and because of that they got a sky that did not look like they wanted.

So they used some tool (cloning toll, pain brush, whatever) to cover the sky, avoiding getting to close to the horizon so they would not erase any part of it.

The result was a perfectly black sky (where the tool was used) and the sky as it looked like on the rest of the photo. The shadows suffer from the same problem, as probably does the rest, but only in the shadows is this visible.

PS: The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth is working, and the image will be available here for some time.

If NASA and the US Government faked the moon landing, believe me, they have enough power to fake the photos.

You really think if they staged the whole thing they'd let out a photo that shows proof?

Or, if you really believe we have the technology to have bases on the moon do you believe we wouldnt have the technology to fake the image or simply paint over them with a pure black photoshop brush?

I mean seriously, this is not proof of anything other than artifacts in an image. It looks to me like it was blurred at some stage and sharpened. It is to do with the way the colors are rendered in the image because the same artifacts are present in the lander shadow.

These are not buildings.

I think everyone here realizes that the rectangular quality of the evidence is a result of compression, as others have pointed out the same patterns emerge in the shadow of the lander when you crank the image enough.
This doesn't alter the fact that it's pretty anomalous for there to be a slightly brighter blue area just above the horizon. Whether this is due to structures, atmosphere, some sort of mirage, or image processing.

The real question here, i think, is why is this not present n the high-res versions

What sort of image processing artefacting could cause this and why is it only present in this image? If the anniversary pictures were processed in the same way we should see similar things in the other images, but we don't.

The same type of artefacts can be found in other images too. I tried this photoshoping out on other images taken on the same view with a slightly different angle, the artefacts are there, but differ a bit in shape. Maybe a sign of brush strokes, but probably just compression artefacts.

I believe you are sitting on the answer, since the other images i tried this on, are of the same size. All of them. If i could get hold of high-res pics of the other angles too, it would probably show up to be nothing.

Hi btw, i think this is my first post, even though i've been hanging here for a while, reading

I think that (a) nablator has covered a lot of issues concerning JPEG compression and what he suggests sounds right (b) try to experiment with your digital camera, shooting a bright object against a dark background, then trying to compress (even Outlook does it for you, when you choose to "send" a smaller image to yourself) -- you'll be amazed how badly the boundaries of areas of high contrast will be artifacted!

And finally, when you subject an already noisy image to a high-contrast filter, you amplify the noise. That's just silly.

reply to post by buddhasystem

---

I agree: it has been proven that the image is the worst of all the ones available: it contains not just jpeg compression artifacts but also color anomalies: we don't know how that "special edition" copy was obtained, but definately at this point, is no longer worthy of further investigations.
It's just a crappy quality version of AS11-37-5454.

ArMaP: thanks for the link: it was down in the last 16 hoers, it's working fine for me too

I think this is just a result of the processing. Notice how the effect only occurs where the image is dark or totally black. Believe me if there was something on the horizon at Mare Tranquilitas NASA would have done a far better job of masking it out.

hey infernos and the op please look at this pic its on the same site/list as the op
could you do the thingy with the picture and tell me whats in the sky and whats in the creator .... the picture number is: AS11-40-5954 what i can see is a light
blue object pointing diagonal upwards to the left and there are some sus looking lines /objects in the shadow of the creator.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by ST SIR 86]

Here you go


from the hi res scan, that can be found here: AS11-40-5954



Enhanced animation:


i'd like to see someone else's opinion, but in my opinion is some reflection or refraction on dust.

ArMaP: thank YOU


[edit on 6/8/2008 by internos]