Do these manipulated Apollo images hide an unknown civilization?

reply to post by 1967sander


Not to give you a hard time for all your work but I don't see anything but artifacts from over processing. Artifacts will usually follow straight lines due to the pixels in digital monitors.
Over-process 'regular' film and you will see all kinds of stuff!. The human brain finds all kinds of things that aren't there because we are programed to do just that!
I can look at the splatter paint on my walls and see faces, figures, etc! Try it sometimes.
Not saying you are purposely doing this, just giving you another possibility.
We need to be realistic and look at all possibilities!

Originally posted by wulff
reply to post by 1967sander

 

Artifacts will usually follow straight lines due to the pixels in digital monitors.

So, how do artifacts explain the stairs on the hill picture? ie: not a straight line.

reply to post by 1967sander


Amazing thread friend Well done on using your curious mind to further my own sense of curiosity.
I will be waiting for further updates with great anticipation.

Who ever was making a statement that in the 1970s we didnt have sophisticated computers ...... aparantly you forgot the Military is about 40-120 years in advance of anything you see in the Civilian World or General Military Population.

Special Forces and Task Force is where you want to be ... the National Reconissance Agency is a black agency ....... they could have easily manipulated these photos .... hell some photos were being extremely well manipulated in the 1800s! There was even a thread showing these on ATS.

reply to post by Jason88

So, how do artifacts explain the stairs on the hill picture? ie: not a straight line.

You need to follow the entire thread.



Notice how the pixilation turns straight diagonal lines into "staircases." If a cheap program can do this, imagine what an expensive program can do in the right hands!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The 'square' surrounding the photo taker in the helmet is simply a result of the way jpg's compress bright images and estimate the colours of surrounding pixels. You see it all the time with jpgs.

reply to post by 1967sander


This is truly facinating, I am very much looking forward to seeing more of your videos concering this topic. There needs to be more of this exposed, and I wish more attention in the main stream media was paid to this

Originally posted by game over man
The supposed pictures of the aliens were crazy! What a spooky video...I recently read about the Glass buildings on the moon on ATS, someone said glass is 10x stronger than steel on the moon. Can anyone explain? S+F

Here is a Thread about it

also they made a metallic glass that is stronger just google "glass stronger than steel" for several articles Here is One!

Damn good thread. I'm no expert but I have to take everything with a grain of salt unfortunately. But looking forward to more videos for sure.

Interesting thread all around. Star and flag and looking forward to your you tube videos.
You seem believable as do some of your debunkers...Food for thought. Thanks

Nice video OP!

The photo that has tape covering the image is very interesting. I think you may have found a Yeti on the moon!

I believe jay weidner has a sound theory to how the images were manipulated,and in his movie Kubrick's Odyssey he says kubrick left clues all throughout the movie the shining which he directed.I watched it,and i think he's on to something.heres a link to his explanation.

www.jayweidner.com...

Originally posted by moebius
OMG is this guy serious? He is analyzing jpg compressed images for manipulation. Depending on the quantization matrix he could see anything he wants in this pics. And then there is also the issue with digitalization of the original photos which will add artifacts on its own. Crap in, crap out.

I agree. As a photoshop user I can confidently say that this guy is just looking at artifacts on digitalized images. You will find these on any image, I've seen this many many times.

Okay, I'm trying to figure out how the OP got this (screen capture from vid at 720p):



I used the 8mb original NASA photo found here: grin.hq.nasa.gov...

Zooming into Armstrong's reflection in the visor gave me a very blocky astronaut:



So how did the OP get Armstrong's body smooth? Well I resized the original image up by about 30 times and got this:



Ok, the body is now smooth but right away you can see a yellow-brown box around him. As one poster mentioned earlier with jpgs, the graphic software estimates the color of the surrounding pixels.

This is clearer if I use negative images:

Before resizing:



No really noticeable "box" around the astronaut.

After resizing, noticeable box:



I will leave the wayward member of the Blue Man Group to others.

the blue man is particularly creepy. what are we looking at?

reply to post by 1967sander


Check out the film "Moon Rising" there are a load of intentionally blurred and skewed images from the Clementine mission in 1996 that are just as sketchy. Great post, S&F.

Too bad, they captured my bed, during my stay on the moon back then. I was not used to visitors and never cleaned up at all. It's embarrassing now the whole world can see it.

But thanks to NASA for trying to keep it secret as long as they could.

Here are some versions of the photo in question.



External version for browser viewing

In order, left to right, we have:

The best version I could find Source

The OP's version Source

A NASA version (see note at the end for details) as created by Kipp Teague Source


Note how the OP's image (middle) is already very processed compared to the left. The highlights are very blown out. Also, note how little details there is in the reflection in the visor in the bottom centre of the image.

As I said before, the OP's conclusions are flawed simply because of the source data. He's using the lowest detailed, most overprocessed images available. Therefore all his conclusions are invalid.



NOTE ABOUT NASA IMAGE ON RIGHT:
"Many of the scans of photos taken during the missions were done from the original film. These scans are being done by NASA Johnson, with some post-processing by Kipp Teague. The film is scanned at 4096 x 4096 pixels per image. Kipp reduces each digital image to approximately 2350 x 2350 pixels (equivalent to 300 dpi) and does minor adjustments of levels to ensure that (1) brightly lit areas of lunar soil are neutral grey, (2) objects with known colors (such as the CDR stripes or the LCRU blankets) look right, and (3) information in bright or dark areas is not lost. These images from original film are indicated by the notation 'OF300' in the image description. In each case, a 900 x 900 pixel version is also provided."

reply to post by wulff


Haha! And every now and then somebody finds a foto on the internet, that has pixels! Clearly a sign of manipulation!

This is really interesting. I do agree with many other posters though, in that I would like to see pictures of other areas using the same software.