Do these manipulated Apollo images hide an unknown civilization?, page 7


Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9    10  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 240 times


reply posted on 26-10-2011 @ 01:43 PM by Pinke
Originally posted by 1967sander
reply to post by Pinke

I do not make use of local equalization software. It is ridiculous to claim that I did. I used this:


Regarding 'ridiculous' ... I find that a little odd given a few things ...

People use contrast equalization and adapative histogram equalization to match the effects of Lucis in many situations. Lucis also discussed equalization in their patent, and had to explain what made their particular formula different.

Furthermore, given I had to guess what functions you were using I think I landed in the right ball park. Here's a comparison of Lucis with one of the functions you referred to as ridiculous. (Note, I even stated that whatever you were using was a variation)

Equalization


Lucis


Original


(All images quickly rescaled for forums)

Note: Lucis halos quite crazily.

Through many years of experience I have can tell what is fake and what is not. I deliberately never touch any image which has NOT been uploaded by NASA or ESA. I always check the md5 checksum and the NASA signatures available before I do any processing.


Through my few years of being a homeless person I've worked out never to rely on my 'credentials' to get me through a conversation. Regardless of whether the person is confrontational or just curious, it's the same as far as I'm concerned. Though I have met quite a few other persons that disagree with me, and you're welcome to and I realise you may think I'm being confrontational but am always curious about this type of things.

Originally posted by 1967sander
I do not make use of the cheap Lucis software but use the science application which is expensive to say the least.

Yes as every software Lucis also has side effects but never that big that it could create "fake" looking images.


The science application you mean LucisPro? $595? When I queried the science app didn't exist? Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place???

Lucis seems useful enough. Normally I'd do more processing on the image above. It takes out a few steps normally required, but the haloing is quite large, so it can be misused in my opinion perhaps?

Realise you've decided to leave this thread. You're welcome to take up conversation with me in chat or other places.

Always interested in pictures.


reply posted on 26-10-2011 @ 02:02 PM by Jason88
reply to post by Frira


Not bad at all. So the moon is made of cheese after all and inhabited by mice, er gophers... um, little beasties.


reply posted on 26-10-2011 @ 02:09 PM by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Jason88


Explanation: Yeah ... I see it ... star for you!





Personal Disclosure:


reply posted on 26-10-2011 @ 02:15 PM by Jason88
reply to post by OmegaLogos


I like your mouse better than the one I know is there poking its head up as the camera snapped a surface pic.


reply posted on 26-10-2011 @ 02:17 PM by Blaine91555
Originally posted by davethebear
Brilliant thread, thank you...very interesting......

I was thinking about something else while watching the video.....This is not NASA or space related, but even photographs that were taken during the time when Kennedy was assassinated, would this kind of technology around photo's etc be able to see more detail around the grassy knoll area......


No software can increase the amount of information in the original. It can only enhance what is there and or add information that does not exist in the original. To get the absolute best you must have the original negative or slide.

This Lucis is no more capable than the other software out there and Lucis seems to me to be simplified to make it more user friendly, not more capable. For the most part plug-ins just add an interface and control that take advantage of capabilities already in the host application. It's attraction is the time savings. If the time savings outweigh the price, you buy it.

Filters often use interpolation which adds things not in the original. What I'm seeing here mainly works with the slight differences in contrast and tone in different ways. Kind of like the HDR image filtering in CS5 to simulate HDR images by manipulating non HDR images. This can be done at an even deeper level breaking the image into channels and manipulating each channel separately.

I've noticed that Adobe adds capabilities each generation that negates the need for particular plug-ins because they no longer are needed. For instance with CS5 the expensive masking plug-ins are pretty much unnecessary now. With most photos since the Raw image feature that comes with Photoshop can be used by converting any image to a tif or jpg you can pull out nearly any detail and select the exact level of detail you want to preserve and enhance. You can easily remove chromatic aberrations, noise and such.

OK, I have diarrhea of the keyboard. Sorry. Half asleep today.
edit on 10/26/2011 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)


reply posted on 26-10-2011 @ 02:18 PM by gambon
after a high level of analysis , i believe you have found proof of clangers on the moon


the above video was captured by the hubble space telescope...hence the poor resolution .......

i wonder if the other blueman is the iron chicken?

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


added vid
edit on 26-10-2011 by gambon because: (no reason given)




reply posted on 26-10-2011 @ 02:24 PM by davethebear
Originally posted by Blaine91555
Originally posted by davethebear
Brilliant thread, thank you...very interesting......

I was thinking about something else while watching the video.....This is not NASA or space related, but even photographs that were taken during the time when Kennedy was assassinated, would this kind of technology around photo's etc be able to see more detail around the grassy knoll area......


No software can increase the amount of information in the original. It can only enhance what is there and or add information that does not exist in the original. To get the absolute best you must have the original negative or slide.

This Lucis is no more capable than the other software out there and Lucis seems to me to be simplified to make it more user friendly, not more capable. For the most part plug-ins just add an interface and control that take advantage of capabilities already in the host application. It's attraction is the time savings. If the time savings outweigh the price, you buy it.

Filters often use interpolation which adds things not in the original. What I'm seeing here mainly works with the slight differences in contrast and tone in different ways. Kind of like the HDR image filtering in CS5 to simulate HDR images by manipulating non HDR images. This can be done at an even deeper level breaking the image into channels and manipulating each channel separately.

I've noticed that Adobe adds capabilities each generation that negates the need for particular plug-ins because they no longer are needed. For instance with CS5 the expensive masking plug-ins are pretty much unnecessary now. With most photos since the Raw image feature that comes with Photoshop can be used by converting any image to a tif or jpg you can pull out nearly any detail and select the exact level of detail you want to preserve and enhance. You can easily remove chromatic aberrations, noise and such.

OK, I have diarrhea of the keyboard. Sorry. Half asleep today.
edit on 10/26/2011 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)


Thanks for your reply, I think I understand what you are stating...always nice to learn something new every day.......cheers


reply posted on 26-10-2011 @ 02:49 PM by ZeddicusZulZorander
I really hate when you type a whole thing out and lose it.

Anyway, I did want to say that I personally don't believe that any of these photos were edited for any other reason than to enhance the contrast, subject matter, or in some cases to remove imperfections in the photos...such as in the case of "the blue man" image.

In fact I know I've had the blue man at one of my birthday parties in the 70's and during other moments in my life too. I've also had "orbs, will o' wisps, and spirits" which turned out to be imperfections, dust particles, insects, and all type of other items. If you want to find something enough though, you will.

That being said, many people here have been claiming that the technology wasn't available to NASA back then and that is completely inaccurate. It used to be done with airbrushes (hence the term) and even prior to that it was done by retouching with ink, paint, double-exposure, taping or gluing photos or negatives together, and even scratching the film itself.

There were cases of this in the Civil War and during WWII the Soviets and Nazis did it quite often, actually removing people and items from known photographs for propaganda purposes.

Could it have been done? Absolutely.
Was it done? Most likely.
Was it done for nefarious reasons? Doubtful.

As I said, most likely to remove imperfections and make the subject matter have more significance.



Just a footnote. Even NASA acknowledges that "image manipulation" is a skill their employees have or need to have.
www.nasa.gov...
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9    10  >>    ^^TOP^^



UFO Filmed From Avebury Crop Circle, UK With Multiple Witnesses
  Posted 19 days ago with 89 member flags
The Men In Black(OPs) The Aviary & UFOs
  Posted 12 days ago with 83 member flags
Did a RAF Tornado crash during a UFO intercept mission in 1997?
  Posted 14 days ago with 39 member flags
What is this comming out of our star?
  Posted 9 days ago with 33 member flags
Huge Unknown Objects orbiting the Sun for months...?
  Posted 8 days ago with 29 member flags
The CIA and the UFO Mythos
  Posted 16 days ago with 26 member flags
UFO Reporting for the 21st Century!
  Posted 12 days ago with 26 member flags