In addition to my thread above...

What the OP has done is use false data to prove the data is false. Talk about circular reasoning...

Thank goodness real science doesn't operate like this

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow

...but NASA ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH and nothing butt right?

Note to all conspiracy theorists: To add credibility to your posts remember to frequently use CAPS and misspell basic words...

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow

...but NASA ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH and nothing butt right?

Note to all conspiracy theorists: To add credibility to your posts remember to frequently use CAPS and misspell basic words...

EPIC FAIL, GET A LIFE MATE..

Just as statistics can be made to say anything.(quote from my college statistics teacher, the first words he spoke to us.) Video software can be made to produce anything. Even things that really aren't there. Want me to believe this baloney? Then show me an unmanipulated picture which proves what you say. Until then you fail big time.

You know what I find interesting?

Well two things actually. One of the posts, I won't point out which, but one of the posts here is almost a cut and paste from another paranormal site, using almost exactly the same phrasing but slightly changed.

how did I find this out? Well, because I searched for AMS and auto multi layer segmentation software. and guess what? google gave me 2 relevant links. A link to THIS THREAD and a link to the other site and it's comment about this video, the one that is almost a direct cut and paste to here.

Even mentions micro-biologists, there is your only hint.

Anyways, I find that rather interesting. The only reference to this magic software are two forum posts about this same video on two different sites. Not one single link brings you any information about AMS.

Does this software even exist? I'm going to do my best to find out.

Anyways, the "work" this fellow did on the images can be done by anyone with GIMP, Paintshop Pro, Photoshop, and probably some MAC software I don't know about. If anything, if this software exists at all, it's merely an automated system using the same tricks and tools as the other software, which makes it quite dubious IMO. And yes, I have a background in graphic arts, specifically working with illustrator, photoshop, and a few 3d animation packages. Most of the photoshop work I did back then was either graphics for games or websites or applications, or photo-manipulation.

I was, and probably still am, a pro at "fixing" photos. Got an old photo from the 1800s and your great great great whatever is missing their legs because the photo was torn? Fixed.

Albeit this isn't exactly digital forensic analysis, but it did give me enough training to be comfortable with the tools.

I've never heard of AMS, but haven't been really actively following any new break throughs other than the upcoming photoshop plugin that can un-blur images with amazing quality. But graphic artists and software designers love to talk. I should surely be able to find more information about this software, if not a specific software package, I should find SOME reference, SOMEWHERE on the net for auto multi layer segmentation software.

I do, but only from this thread and a similar one.

Alarm bells are ringing.

well,looking at those 'stairs' on the pyramid, i wouldn't want to try to travel down them when i was drunk!!!
looks like the alien who built them had a few 'space pops'! i guess they perfected stairs when they got to earth!

Originally posted by Swills
He did use the software on a NASA photo that had no manipulations and then showed photos that did. So that should answer that question, unless you wanna see it compare to other photos that are non-NASA.

Actually he looked at three photos in a series.

He claimed that one was manipulated and the other two were not.

You can easily prove to yourself this claim is false as I did to myself.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
This is a case in point at ~5 mins with the dark hollow being analysed and interpreted as something to hide. It's more than likely that a processing error occured and was cleaned up by someone like Kip Teague. The blocks and pixel artefacts at 6:30 undermine the claimed capabilities of the software as they are creating shapes where none are. The fact that the software is 'expensive' doesn't mean it's interpreting the data correctly.

Kandinsky I think your post is the best in the thread so far. Yes there will be artifacts where photos are stitched together.

And you're right that the OP's software is doing something screwy and he doesn't understand what it's doing.

I downloaded as15-85-11450 and as15-85-11451 to do a much simpler analysis to look for manipulation. I simply applied a gamma edit to lighten the dark areas to see if my software shows a difference like the OP's software does.

Here are my results:
as15-85-11450 which the OP says is not manipulated


as15-85-11451 which the OP says is manipulated


So I'm not seeing a difference in the dark area, they look very similar. The OP's software is doing something screwy with the second photo and he just doesn't understand what the software is doing. It's making something from nothing.

So not only does the video claim completely fail on a simple photo analysis, but it completely fails on a simple logic analysis too. The OP video claims on the as15-85-11451 picture that there must be something in the dark area that they don't want us to see. But we CAN see the dark area in other photos in the series, even according to him! So it makes no logical sense to say they are hiding something when the same area is visible in multiple photos and the OP claims only one is manipulated. The manipulation is actually being done by the OP video, not by NASA.

If you don't believe me, download the photos and analyze them yourself like I did.

I agree, great job here!
Something is fishy for sure, I've seen too many mars manipulated photos to think you are seeing artifact imagery and pixillation

Too many gadgets on mars and moon structures erased.to think 1967sanders is not on to something big. He really is. Good luck to you and hope you keep going with this. Fine job indeed!