NASA's Apollo Coverup - "LunaCognita - A Forensic Look At The 16mm DAC Film Footage", page 4

reply to post by Alaskan Man

---

Hear hear!

About time someone said it.

Manners cost absolutely nothing, but they mean a great deal.

Thanks OP.

reply to post by easynow

---

Blimey...i can't believe i didn't spot that!

Well done easynow.

So, this 'member' took only 4 minutes to read the OP's post, view and digest a 9.55 minute video, and compose and post a reply...oh dear.

What does that tell us about him i wonder?

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

---

Thanks for your kind words of caution. I agree that some over-enhancement or post manipulation can potentially yield extranneous artifacts However I DO NOT feel that is the case here.

Two simple Before/After:


To my eye, the images on right were substantially enhanced showing greater detail/clarity.

IMO, no harm no foul. The stacking effect yielded a sharper result in this case without introducing "phantom" artifacts. I agree with your assessment regarding "sharpening", up to a point. As the old adage goes, garbage in - garbage out. I'm not looking to get into a "credential battle" but have been involved with video for nearly 30 years. Algorithms..blah...blah...blah.

Good Day, maybe....maybe not.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by ArMaP

---

Surely, he deserves some credit for bothering to bring this to the forum members attention even if he didn't make the video..no?

Perhaps if LunaCognita has actually posted the OP and video to ATS, then he'd get the recognition, but as far as i'm aware, he didn't...easynow did.

Not really on ArMaP, kind of a churlish comment, in my opinion.

Was your remark meant to be tongue in cheek? Humorous? If so, you'll not lose face by saying so, in fact probably the opposite..if the feelings of members that bother to get their fingers out and post threads to enrich ATS means anything to you that is.

At the least, your stance doesn't do much to encourage members, does it?

Very interesting work from LunaCognita!

FRAME-STACKING
In the last half of this presentation (starting at 4:30), I show various examples where I employ an enhancement technique known as "frame-stacking" against the raw DAC archive footage. In certain cases, frame-stacking can be employed to forensically attack the raw frames of film and produce an enhanced composite still-frame of a stable (or motion-stabilized) scene. It should be noted that "stacking" is by no means a new method of enhancing video or motion picture film footage. It is a digital enhancement technique that has been around a lot longer than most people would probably believe, and in many cases it can provide us an improved look at some of the deeper image detail that is actually buried beneath the random "noise" in the raw footage.

Can I make a request?

Search terms for Google:
astronaut Buzz Aldrin recounts Apollo 11 UFO encounter

footage of the Apollo 11 UFO filmed by the astronauts is included in this video. It is the only confirmed evidence right from the mouth of the astronauts about UFOs until now.

www.youtube.com...

It would shed some light if we could see the stills of the alleged UFO FRAME-STACKED!
It can make a tone of difference.

Relevant thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
singled out post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

To check if what appeared here (recount of American astronaut):
img232.imageshack.us...

had also been described here (recount of former USSR astronaut):
img232.imageshack.us...

Thank you!
Keep up the good work!

[edit on 17-3-2010 by spacebot]

reply to post by ArMaP

---

Hey Armap.

Just so you know: Easynow won't be able to respond to you as he has been post-banned.

His last posts are all in this thread.


*Well I guess I should post more screencaps for the guys who don't have access to youtube....

Here goes - objects out the window:

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by spikey

---

So, this 'member' took only 4 minutes to read the OP's post, view and digest a 9.55 minute video, and compose and post a reply...oh dear.

Some of us are just a little faster than others I guess. Where it seems your average ATS'r needs to sit through all 9 minutes in order to come to a conclusion, some of us can spot tripe a little sooner and don't require all 9 minutes in order to give our opinion. It's like eating a crap sandwich because you happen to like the bread. No thanks, I'll pass.

You guys can fall all over yourselves about yet another youtube video making something out of nothing (especially with a soundtrack, because we know a good soundtrack always makes those moon photos better), you can even fall all over yourselves and U2U each other left and right laughing about how you "busted the man" or "exposed a debunker" all you want, but in doing so your missing the real crime here.

But I know how people are about this subject. Most are more interested in the noise rather than the signal, and they unwittingly do all they can to add to it. Years and years from now, those of you that are still around we be saying and doing the same thing wondering why, after all this time and your hard "work" people don't take this subject seriously enough to get to the truth. But you will never look in the mirror.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
reply to post by spikey

---

So, this 'member' took only 4 minutes to read the OP's post, view and digest a 9.55 minute video, and compose and post a reply...oh dear.

Some of us are just a little faster than others I guess. Where it seems your average ATS'r needs to sit through all 9 minutes in order to come to a conclusion, some of us can spot tripe a little sooner and don't require all 9 minutes in order to give our opinion. It's like eating a crap sandwich because you happen to like the bread. No thanks, I'll pass.

You guys can fall all over yourselves about yet another youtube video making something out of nothing (especially with a soundtrack, because we know a good soundtrack always makes those moon photos better), you can even fall all over yourselves and U2U each other left and right laughing about how you "busted the man" or "exposed a debunker" all you want, but in doing so your missing the real crime here.

But I know how people are about this subject. Most are more interested in the noise rather than the signal, and they unwittingly do all they can to add to it. Years and years from now, those of you that are still around we be saying and doing the same thing wondering why, after all this time and your hard "work" people don't take this subject seriously enough to get to the truth. But you will never look in the mirror.

I guess you are so consistent in your 'debunking' you put yourself in a position to prove why anyone on this forum should take into account what you are debunking.

Why do you think you should not view the whole footage and dismiss it? Is that not the height of ignorance?

Perhaps you should look before you leap - or at the very least have the courtesy of watching the whole thing before you 'debunk'.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
reply to post by spikey

---

So, this 'member' took only 4 minutes to read the OP's post, view and digest a 9.55 minute video, and compose and post a reply...oh dear.

Some of us are just a little faster than others I guess. Where it seems your average ATS'r needs to sit through all 9 minutes in order to come to a conclusion, some of us can spot tripe a little sooner and don't require all 9 minutes in order to give our opinion.

I must admit after seeing 2 minutes of any video, I've already formed an opinion during the first two minutes. Sometimes it changes after that and sometimes it doesn't. In the case of the video in the OP, the frame stacking starts about 4 minutes and I didn't see much in that other than to agree with kindacurious:

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Two simple Before/After:

To my eye, the images on right were substantially enhanced showing greater detail/clarity.

I agree the pictures on the right look clearer. But did we have any doubts about what these images were before the frame stacking? Aren't there much clearer stills than either of these images on NASA's website? Seems to me like a more appropriate title for the video would be "frame stacking is cool" which it is, but post that in a thread on photographic analysis.

I actually watched the whole video before commenting, however my opinion didn't really change much after 2 minutes, the only change was, to agree with KK that some examples of the frame stacking look good, but...again...other than showing off his video analysis and enhancement talents, I'm not sure I understand why we needed these images to be enhanced, can anyone explain that? Nor do I understand why this thread is in the aliens and UFOs section when I didn't see any aliens or UFOs, unless you think every single debris particle and every single piece of space junk should be called a UFO.

Now if someone posts a video of a UFO that appears to be maneuvering rather than just following a straight line or parabolic trajectory, that would be an interesting UFO, but I didn't see any such motions here.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

---

I guess the point is here you didn't see anything, and I did (a lot).

In this case we are neither both right or both wrong.

Breaking it down - we both can only offer opinions.

Neither are true, neither are false...

Originally posted by spacebot
Search terms for Google:
astronaut Buzz Aldrin recounts Apollo 11 UFO encounter

footage of the Apollo 11 UFO filmed by the astronauts is included in this video. It is the only confirmed evidence right from the mouth of the astronauts about UFOs until now.

www.youtube.com...

re-watch the video, they say that's from a later mission, not Apollo 11.

Also note Buzz said "we decided to go to sleep", if it were me and I thought aliens were shadowing me I probably wouldn't be going to sleep, I would probably keep an eye on that thing. So I dont think they were too concerned about it. And that video implies if it "wasn't the s4b, there's only 1 thing it could be..." which isn't correct, there's 4 other known things it could be as Buzz Aldrin explains here:

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by Arbitrageur

---

I guess the point is here you didn't see anything, and I did (a lot).

Well I see something in those images KindaKurious posted, a radar dish and a lunar module. Do you see something else? I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking for there?

[edit on 18-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by Arbitrageur

---

I guess the point is here you didn't see anything, and I did (a lot).

Well I see something in those images KindaKurious posted, a radar dish and a lunar module. Do you see something else? I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking for there?

I was referring to the whole video

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts

---

Your opinion may well be right but it is just that.

In fact it is less than that because of how you present it.

If you want to ged rid of the noise stop adding to it yourself and use a sharp knife rather than a foul smelling brick.

reply to post by kinda kurious

---

G'day KK

I agree.....the image examples of the equipment that you posted appear to show enhanced detail.

When I wrote my comments, I was thinking more of the moon terrain pictures because those are more analogous to the medical images I mentioned. I feel the moon terrain images could be more easily manipulated to a point where artificial video features could inadvertently be introduced into the landscape.

I did not mean to sound "full of it" when I mentioned I have some background with this.....my background is very specifically medically oriented & tangential to the frame stacking in the vid.

If you have 30 years video experience with this sort of frame stacking technology, then you certainly know more about it than I do.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 18-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts

---

The moderators watching this thread already have their knickers in a twist, so i'll keep this brief and succinct;

Take the replies already given to you by the other members, amalgamate them into one and extrapolate the gist, and you'll have my reply to you...save for this;

In my opinion based on your manner and shoddy approach to evidentiary scrutiny before posting blatantly biased and extremely rude replies in this thread, you sir (and i use the salutation very loosely), are a liar and a bully..a clumsy one at that. And i have zero time for both liars and bullies.

Please do me the courtesy of adding me to your ignore list, and i'll do the same for you. Good day.

(Apologies to easynow, the OP of this enlightening thread (enlightening in more ways than one), but i've been asked a question, so i'm obliged to reply)

On topic; I am at a loss to explain how some responders to this thread, apparently cannot see how the video techniques used in the production of LunaCognita's video, which easynow was very kind enough to post for us, enhances the original frames? It is obviously clearer, sharper and while some 'detail' as one member put it, has been lost, the 'detail' in question was the NOISE. Rather the point of the exercise.

The frames displayed are orders of magnitude higher in clarity than the original frames, they are despeckled, they are sharper, the contrast/brightness is now in balance...the stabilisation routines are a gem.

Simply put, if you cannot see just how wonderful an improvement has been made, you should have gone to Specsavers!(UK specific Opticians).

As for the anomalous objects in the sequence, if you view the video with an unjaded eye, and be mindful of how objects behave in zero G, you'll come to realise that 'ice particles' or space programme debris, moved by rocket motors, or manoeuvring jets do NOT tend to move back and forth, especially from the same jet thrust.

Thanks easynow AND LunaCognita.
[edit on 18/3/2010 by spikey]

[edit on 18/3/2010 by spikey]

Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 9 days ago with 65 member flags

Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 18 days ago with 60 member flags

UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 12 days ago with 31 member flags

The Edge of Reality - Updated Report on the Illinois Police UFO case, January 5th, 2000.
  Posted 6 days ago with 28 member flags

The Aurora, Texas UFO Incident (1897)
  Posted 3 days ago with 27 member flags

Jacques Vallee: Implications of UFO Phenomena - Thinking Allowed.
  Posted 2 days ago with 22 member flags

1/28/2012 craft in sky From Puerto Rico - Need help getting more info!!
  Posted 7 days ago with 21 member flags

UFO above Wadden Sea
  Posted 11 days ago with 14 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: