Do these manipulated Apollo images hide an unknown civilization?

reply to post by LightAssassin


OK, at home now, had a chance to watch...and holy crap. I was salivating over the BC doc about extraterrestrials only to find out it was a sample doc for educational purposes.

This on the other hand is entirely convincing. Pity the software is so expensive.

reply to post by 1967sander


Awesome work!!

keep 'em comin' brother!


Jay Weidner on Kubrick's Odyssey - Secrets of The Apollo Mission
**Start at about 7:45

Epic fail!

From the source website...

"Anaglyphs in the image libraries created from sequential panorama frames by the ALSJ editor exist only because of Yuri Krasilnikov's willingness to teach me the art. Whatever value the anaglyphs have is due to Yuri's insights and guidance. Flaws are my doing. Briefly, panorama stitching freeware HUGIN is used to create both non-stereo pan assemblies and remapped versions of the images. The latter are then made into anaglyphs using GIMP. The individual remapped images are linked from the corresponding Library entries for the original frames. The remapped images can be used to create stereo views using other methods."

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Panorama...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Some of the original souce images...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

The OP is using modern digitally manipulated panaramic images using freeware software as his source to prove that the original images are manipulated. NASA would happily confirm that these images are manipulated - they are by definition if they're panoramas!

Great piece of analysis

I can't believe people actually starred this rubbish.

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 BagBing
Epic fail!

From the source website...

"Anaglyphs in the image libraries created from sequential panorama frames by the ALSJ editor exist only because of Yuri Krasilnikov's willingness to teach me the art. Whatever value the anaglyphs have is due to Yuri's insights and guidance. Flaws are my doing. Briefly, panorama stitching freeware HUGIN is used to create both non-stereo pan assemblies and remapped versions of the images. The latter are then made into anaglyphs using GIMP. The individual remapped images are linked from the corresponding Library entries for the original frames. The remapped images can be used to create stereo views using other methods."

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Panorama...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Some of the original souce images...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

The OP is using modern digitally manipulated panaramic images using freeware software as his source to prove that the original images are manipulated. NASA would happily confirm that these images are manipulated - they are by definition if they're panoramas!

Great piece of analysis

I can't believe people actually starred this rubbish.

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

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...

reply to post by BagBing


Freudian!
There are no conspiracies within NASA you're saying?

I believe not as NUMEROUS threads have proven time after time after...

And you're CONVINCED NASA show all the world everything they know?

reply to post by BagBing


Oh I know what you mean, I was told to deny ignorance by someone who couldn't even spell familiar..

Seriously though, if a person can't understand the technology being used in this software then by all means attack them for spelling and grammar.. It's a common attack used in exasperation when they just can't fathom the real subject matter.. /end sarcasm

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..

reply to post by 1967sander
The first image is a panorama made from 3 frames stitched together. The lines and blocks are artefacts of the process. Link

The second one was much harder to find because the Apollo 17 image archive doesn't contain any 'A17 - 165-333BHR.' There's no magazine '165' at all and no googling finds it either. What you have is another panorama stitched together from the AS17-145/147 magazines. An example of which is here... here.

Importantly, look at the crosses (fiducials) and you can see it's made from several images (1min). Google Kipp Teague because he's responsible for many of the panorama images we see on NASA sites.

The taped image would be evidence of human paw-prints on the tape - notice the 'objects' are right at the end of the tape where we'd pinch it with finger and thumb? I think this, with the others, suggests that your software provides images that you interpret as evidence of NASA mischief and alien objects.

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.

The 'blue guy' at 8mins is interesting but also shows that your letting your hopes determine what you see. If you hadn't said it was a guy, I wouldn't have seen it as so. You've got a heavily magnified image and then applied as many filters as necessary to define it into a humanoid form. Pareidolia is a charge that's frequently aimed your way and it's in the air again.

At 9:40 the reflection looks like an astronaut. If it isn't an astronaut (white suit, boxey-looking...ahem....cough) then *where* the heck is the person taking the picture?!

For you to demonstrate an 'unknown civilisation' in these images, you'd need to use a sequenced series and apply all your techno-wizardry to show the *same* objects in all of them. I'd be willing to bet that you've already done this and couldn't do it.

planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov...;jsessionid=a72999d1539992f5a61c12893e0a
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

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.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by 1967sander

 

What would happen if you used that same software, and *processing* techniques, and applied them to dozens of other photographs?

Pick any photos, even some from your last holiday or vacation....of someplace you know.

Tell everyone who has starred and flagged to try it themselves, and observe the results.

And if one were to get similar results, from photos of say.....a desert on Earth, or one's own photos of the night sky.....??

Would it then be fair to admit that the "manipulated" Apollo images weren't altered by NASA, or anyone associated with NASA, at all, in the manner inferred...but, it was the over-processing by that software that made the *anomalies* appear?

Surely, anyone else can duplicate these results, if all claims of *manipulated* Apollo images are true?

There are quite a few ATS members here who have the knowledge, experience and possibly even access to the same types of software. Anyone?

I don't know if this has already been replied to, sorry if it has.

1967sander used the same enhancement software on a non-manipulated photo in the video and he proves by doing so that it was not manipulated. So there is already an example in the clip that shows the enhancement software he is using is not creating noise.

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.

reply to post by Recouper

1967sander used the same enhancement software on a non-manipulated photo in the video and he proves by doing so that it was not manipulated.

no I don't think anyone made it far enough in the video to see that. Could you kindly post the time stamp of this part of the video so I can find it quickly, I'm rather interested in this software as I can find no reference to it outside this thread and another similar thread.

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.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


Time stamp, sure... just give me a moment to get it.

I'll edit this post with it once I have it.


Edit: Ok, watch from 05:20. Interestingly the picture he shows to not have been manipulated does look strikingly innocent under his enhancement compared to the others.

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!

Originally posted by Recouper
reply to post by phishyblankwaters

 

Time stamp, sure... just give me a moment to get it.

I'll edit this post with it once I have it.


Edit: Ok, watch from 05:20. Interestingly the picture he shows to not have been manipulated does look strikingly innocent under his enhancement compared to the others.

edit on 26/10/2011 by Recouper because: Got the time stamp.

That's probably because the image is an unmanipulated original picture, unlikely the others which HAVE been manipulated for presentation purposes. See my post above.

Originally posted by ProudBird
Imagine the immense *team* that wold need to be employed to do this, building a computer that didn't yet exist, writing software that was still a dream for Gates and Wozniak and Jobs.....et al.

You do realize that photo forgery has been around for a long time, right? You'd be amazed at some of the stuff people 70+ years ago were able to do. Nothing was impossible, just very time consuming. I once saw a picture of Hitler, standing behind the earth in a dark room. This was done in 1939. So next time, I'd suggest reading up on how photo fakes were created back in the day before claiming you'd need some kind of computer to pull it off.

Wikipedia - Photo manipulation