Do these manipulated Apollo images hide an unknown civilization?

reply to post by Kyobosha

Yes it was not an event that remained a constant intensity. There is always dampening within a system. We just expected more dampening than what actually occurred.

I agree in principle. The point of exploration is discovery.

The internal arrangement of the Moon was purely speculative, until we actually got there with some real science. More science is needed. It could well be that these anomalies are due to vast voids in the interior...caves, if you will. Or, fractures of great lengths....fissures created from very energetic meteor impacts billions of years ago. Even from tidal forces exerted by the Earth's gravity, as the Moon orbits. Many concepts to be evaluated.

What is generally irksome though is....the "rang like a bell" comment has been mis-used and mis-interpreted by so many (and, just saw it ten minutes ago in ATS Chat) to claim that the Moon is some sort of artificial alien-built space ship.

That ignorant belief is mind-boggling, on so many levels.

Speaking to the OP here, too. The Moon is just a dead rock, and certainly cannot now (nor in the past) support a "civilization". Perhaps in future, with a tremendous amount of technological assistance, we Humans will learn to build outposts and bases there.

But, back to the ATS Chat room again....same person who thinks the Moon is artificial, mentioned an Ingo Swann claim of "remote viewing" that "saw" naked Nazis digging holes on the Moon. I mean, what kind of person will buy into this nonsense??

Originally posted by brice

Remember, a theory is a hypothesis, not a fact.

Kyo

My understanding is theory is based on several tested facts, hypothesis is conjecture and untested.
just sayin'
brice

'Just sayin'' man I hate that kind of comment. But you are right in the sense that the two are not the same. However, a theory is not a fact but a possible explanation that is put forward to explain a phenomena. The theory is then supported or contradicted by other scientists with other data. A hypothesis is a conjecture that leads to a theory after some testing. A theory is a proposed explanation (hypothesis) that is presented with supporting data. It is not a scientific fact at that point though. I should have elaborated, I am human, and I am fallible

reply to post by ProudBird


Stay tuned for the sequel. I will show you more evidence of tampering and unknown objects found on several Apollo missions. Some of these unknown objects show up on different missions. Black pictures appear to have been made black on purpose to hide objects and there's on particular object that looks like a ship of some kind.

No I have not gone but have been very busy in finding more evidence.

Greetz,

Sander

reply to post by 1967sander


Could you please provide the sources of the images used in the new video(s)?

Another request: could you provide just the images, not only for those that cannot watch the videos but also because a video is never as good as static image in terms of quality.

Also, I hate video as a means to show static images.

Thanks in advance.

reply to post by ArMaP


Yes, I will and also make the images I processed available for download.

Greetz,

Sander

reply to post by 1967sander
I agree with Armap's intelligent suggestions and would also like to ask you to provide links to where you sourced the images.

This will prevent the unfortunate misidentification of mission archives and magazine numbers from such missions.

Thanks (or greetz).

reply to post by 1967sander


Thanks, I will waiting for them.

I'm sorry, still not convinced. It appears to hide stuff in the background but I really don't see it.
For example the "Pyramid": What appears like steps going down the hill looks suspiciously like artifacts wich appear when heavy compression or to much filtering is applied to an digital image. These kind of manipulations always create blocklike artifacts because the contrast is really big in that area.
The tape really shows nothing yet and it appears to me to be an airbubble between the tape and the photograph.
I could be wrong and I really hope I am but I'm only saying it's not convincing yet.
The image in the helmet is the least convincing to me. The shadow is actually correct if you really pay attention to how the other shadows move. They follow the bulge of the visor so it's only natural that the shadow from the astronaut who's taking the picture is not parralel to the rest. It would bulge differently from the rest as you would expect it in a fish-eye lens. Completely natural behavior and I imagine that any manipulator would actually forget this part and try to make it parralel with the rest just to show that it's really correct but it would be actually incorrect phisically.

I don't want to sound like one of those, "it was a swamplight or a lens flare" kind of guys but we must keep doubting. I really hope I'm wrong and I'm waiting to be pleasantly surprised. I imagine they will keep the best for last

reply to post by 1967sander


Great news!

I await with bated breathe for more of your dis-ingenuousness and image tampering skills.

reply to post by Chadwickus


If you like to look intelligent and smart, better next time copy and paste the right word.

disingenuousness

new topographical data from latest probe ...

www.bbc.co.uk...

"It reveals troughs and bumps over nearly the entire Moon with a pixel scale close to 100m (328 ft).


A single measure of elevation (one pixel) on the map is roughly the size of two football pitches placed side-by-side."



"Dr Robinson, from Arizona State University in Tempe, added: "We can now determine slopes of all major geologic terrains on the Moon at 100m scale,

reply to post by PrimePorkchop

Originally posted by PrimePorkchop
Yes, actually, i'm positive that it's not "i" who is seeing what they want to see.

This thread is one of the biggest proclamations ever to be made by a CT'er and nay a shred of evidence to back i up.

Numerous requests of the OP him or her self and not a single response.

You claim you proved he was holding a camera, yet I even find your evidence of that extremely flaky (and to that matter, irrelevant)

There is no proof at all in this thread, yet there are people still drooling over it like they were on death row and this was what they requested for their last supper.

A big bowl of non sense.
Served with a nice glass of Kool-Aid.

They're slurping it all up.

You really need to re-read our exchange (you and I in this thread). You are arguing against evidence that supports your side of the argument. You have flipped everything around. I was debunking the OP in my original response to you.

Please... slow down... and re-read it with fresh eyes and without assuming you understood it the first time.

You are sabotaging your own credibility because you don't even realize you are lashing out at people who supported your side of the argument, thus showing you aren't using good discrimination and judgement (the necessary tools of a skeptic).

I wish you the best and hope it makes sense upon a second reading.

Just to clear up something in my head:

You're claiming that you can prove manipulation of the photos by manipulating them yourself?

reply to post by 1967sander


this is so cool i really wish we knew what they were

Very Nice OP. Here is one of my favorites.. from your video Unidentified Flying Objects - UFO - 1...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


EVER seen the television show called "FarScape"?

Might want to, in case you did not know about this Science Fiction made-for-TV series, produced (as it turns out) in Australia.

Here......looky looky:

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

EVER seen the television show called "FarScape"?

I sure have And here are two more that I screen captured from OP's vids. I'm not even going to take guess as tp how a digitial camera could capture these images. I can simply enjoy them for the artistic merit

Some kind of space alien art? IDK. Some of it looks pretty sweet though... edit to add: these are screen caps from OP's youtube channel.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


LOL!!!!!

True to form.

Hook, line and sinker. Some may wonder how, but in the over-all vision? It's pretty obvious WHO is honest5, and who is not.

The guy has some cool points, but I find it funny how he ends the video so smoothly and casually given what he supposedly found. I would like to see the source for the images he found, and the name of the program.
The fact that he doesn't give the name is a little strange, I mean it's not like it's top secret software, it's just really
expensive according to him.