Do these manipulated Apollo images hide an unknown civilization?

page: 4
240
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by BagBing
 


I don't know enough about imaging it to weigh in on that point.

By the way, when watching from 05:20, watch until 07:30/35 to see the enhancement taken to a high level on the non manipulated image.




posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Soo, i guess there wont be any referense photos
analyzed...Just thought i´d ask....






HOAX


+3 more 
posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Finally watched video. I can only see it very small since I didn't download the huge version, but I think I picked up enough.

I recognised histogram equalization from the OP.

I don't why the maker of the video is saying it's special special softwares and can not be purchased in stores when equalization filter apps can be purchased for $20 - 500 depending which one you want. The only reason they don't sell them is you don't go to a local computer store and say 'I would like a local EQ filter please, and a bag of fourier transforms.'



^ I made this in photoshop. Though you can do this in matlab or whatevers.

Local EQ and it's various forms and off shoots are used in microbiology etc ... but it's really nothing amazing special. Has been around for years and years and years ...

PS ... hooj version of image is available, I just made tiny one so it would fit on forum, but I can't imagine it's that interesting.

And ja ... basically it enhances contrast of pixels that are brighter than their surrounds so it makes edges and detail easier to see ... though most forms of it crank up noise artifacts chronically and in general it's encouraged that you remove noise from an image before hitting the go button.

Oh sorry, ultra extra last edit ...

People with type of evidence really should follow something like: Daubert Standard

That means transparency about method, technique, and finding. We really shouldn't have to look this stuff up to follow it. I don't see any reason why a person completing this kind of work can't say, 'I did the following processes' and just list them. Sure, not everyone will follow or understand, but some people will and will want to.

How can people be so quick to trust someone that keeps information to themselves under the guise of special special software?

edit on 26-10-2011 by Pinke because: And ja ...
edit on 26-10-2011 by Pinke because: Daubert standard!



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miccey
Soo, i guess there wont be any referense photos
analyzed...Just thought i´d ask....


I already did.

In summary...

NASA has a collection of panaramic images, created from multiple originals which are stitched together, and prepared for publication purposes. The fact that they are manipulated is stated on NASA's website.

There are also a collection of original unmanipulated images (used to create the panoramas mentioned).

The OP has taken the manipulated images, analysed them, and concluded they are manipuated!!!

He then takes an original to prove that not all images are manipulated...

It's a pointless thread really (although clearly upsetting for some of the diehard believers - ie those that refuse to accept the rather obvious evidence).



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by Miccey
Soo, i guess there wont be any referense photos
analyzed...Just thought i´d ask....


I already did.

In summary...

NASA has a collection of panaramic images, created from multiple originals which are stitched together, and prepared for publication purposes. The fact that they are manipulated is stated on NASA's website.

There are also a collection of original unmanipulated images (used to create the panoramas mentioned).

The OP has taken the manipulated images, analysed them, and concluded they are manipuated!!!

He then takes an original to prove that not all images are manipulated...

It's a pointless thread really (although clearly upsetting for some of the diehard believers - ie those that refuse to accept the rather obvious evidence).


ehh NO...
I asked for referensphotos of object down here..
Not from the moon..

Take a picture of any scen down on EARTH...
Analyze with your "special" software like they do in the op Vid...
And precent here..Please...



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
No, you don't usually find these types of artifacts when messing around with the configurations, with a typical everyday photograph.

Has that glass tower photograph ever been explained?



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
To those asking what software the OP used, these are QE-SR for increasing resolutions and Lucis Science Software for contrast.


Check out 16 secs into this video:

edit on 26-10-2011 by wavemaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
excellent work fella...
really enjoyed that video..
and the voice made me sleepy.....



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ProudBird
 





Now then....who can tell us what kind of image manipulation software was available in 1969, 1970, 1971.....etc?

Surely, for any organization committed to *hiding evidence* from Apollo photos that date from the actual historical records and time-frame, they would have had to have very sophisticated computer processing abilities in the 1970s?? I seem to have miss that tidbit from the historical records of the era.

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.

Wow! What skilled and genius professionals, hiding all those skills for so many decades.




surely you understand that photos have been manipulated long before computers existed. Photos have been manipulated and convincingly so for the entire history of film.

You are going to have to do a bit better than that I am afraid. Your argument is moot.

ethicsinediting.wordpress.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

news.deviantart.com...


edit on 26-10-2011 by sageofmonticello because: fixed quote



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
I find it very "convenient" this work is all done with software that the avg joe can't go out and get. The video narrator makes that very clear in manner like "don't even go out and try, they don't sell it and you don't have the money".



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
The video is useless to everyone unless, as with any sort of experiment, there is a control to prove the theory put forth.

The person that made the video need to show how he "pulled out" the artifact from the image by doing the exact same thing to another image (of the same type of setting [i.e. dark landscape]) and show that the artifacts don't appear in that control image.

Otherwise, it proves nothing. I want to see how the artifacts don't pop up when doing the same process to an image here on Earth.

Otherwise, this is just a bunch of BS.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by 1967sander
 


S&F for you ! keep up the good work
getting this kind of information to ATS and you will get a FLAG from me everytime.
There is somehing going on the moon, or perhaps its just all made in a studio.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
So get to the real point......why is NASA "manipulating" photos?



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by wavemaker
 


You cannot increase the resolution of a digital image without fabricating digital or mathematical estimation. Take a low resolution photo of a tree and ask any digital resolution (fantasy) software to show you the leaves on that tree.
It simply wont and nothing does that without 'MAKING STUFF UP' that isn't from the photo.

NASA photos were on film, they were developed by independent labs and printed various ways, some of those prints were later scanned digitally and what you see are cleaning smudge marks from poor lab processing.

Do a little research, unicorns simply don't exist no matter how hard you dream.

edit on 26-10-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


It would help if the source image was referenced. What is the source images, how were they digitized, by who, from what kind of original, film negative, a print from a film negative, or a scan of a print from a film negative. All of these Youtube image artifact searcher videos are stupidly useless but the layman (who wants to believe in NASA moon hoaxes), doesn't care because its out there for the uneducated people to pint at.

It's really very sad, and quite humorous.

No source, no demonstration. It's meaningless.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
What the "enhanced" image shows:



What I see:



What conspiracy theorists see:



Do I have that about right?



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by 1967sander
 


Before I start, I like the OPs posts and hope he continues to post on ATS.

Anyway, I decided to try to replicate the OP photos myself and found the panoramic images do contain extraneous information.

Lets start with a panoramic image:



www.hq.nasa.gov...

I applied some filters and gamma correction and did in fact see the same rectangles over the horizon:



I went to the originals BEFORE a panorama was created, and took one piece:



www.lpi.usra.edu...

Note how the sky is brighter and not inky black like the panorama picture. This indicates the panorama picture was edited (contrast, gamma) and not just stitched together.

Applying exactly the same filters in the same order as before I got this:



Note there are NO rectangles floating above the horizon. This is just more proof to the other claims that a manipulated image (the panoramas) do in fact contain noise introduced in the creation of the panorama.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Nice video work. Most people with a brain know NASA is hiding what's really on the moon, and have manipulated these images, as well and just about every other image they release, which is why I will never trust anything they say, or put out for the public to see. I guess they believe us civilians don't deserve to know the truth, even though we all pay their salaries and for their million dollar equipment.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by jazzguy
 


"Shadow on ceiling"??

Next you'll find one with "Ceiling Cat" poking his head out wearing a grin.


Here, just one source of the actual image, from Apollo 17. Knock yourselves out, and find any *manipulations* besides the junk noise added by over-processing software:

AS17-151-23201


Might want to find a way to explain how each frame from the three 16-mm film DACs were "manipulated to hide" something too.

And, the live TV video as well. Many, many hours of it.

Good luck.


THE FAL-CON HAS DIGI-EYES T



Don't want to be that "MOON LANDING CAVE MAN TECH DENIAL GUY... THAT ONLY THE NO NEED TO KNOW PUBLIC SHEEPLE KNOW ABOUT"
... BUT!!!... You shouldn't watch so many HOLYWOOD movies... It programs U-ALL... with what is truth base-line


Mr X-ULTRA/MOONRAKER... wondering
if Mr Mitchell... was trying to sell more than just a 16 mill space cam hidden inside a L
K a like a 16 mill space cam
...
edit on 26-10-2011 by CosmicWaterGate because: 3 sides to every Info-digi-war AJ MONEYNUKE to Mars donation... 'Black Knight' DIGI-CONspiracy

edit on 26-10-2011 by CosmicWaterGate because: Get your credit cards out... and CALL NOW... Before WW3 happens... AGAIN




posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
You can do this with any picture and get the same exact kind of results.





 
240
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join