It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More and better evidence of NASA photo manipulation

page: 5
32
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by 1967sander
 



Its now clear to me that you just want to be funny.

hahaha what a joke.


So you're using ridicule to avoid answering the question. That speaks volumes, doesn't it? If an image is manipulated before it is scanned, it will only have one layer, won't it?




posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


No ridicule. You amuse me. Never believed that my video would excite someone like you that much. It is a video, not the end of the world. I simply do not answer to stupid questions. You can try to proof that my analysis is wrong.
Cause I will not. I know that these images are manipulated and do not need to defend my findings any further.

I am now going on with part three, four and five of this series.

Tada,

Sander



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 
Yes if that's what they are called reference crosses, so the original photos I saw had these on, the pics in the video are definately not the original photos filmed by Nasa, if only I STILL had a copy it would prove to everyone that the moon landing was not a hoax, it did happen but unfortunately Nasa manipulated the photos to hide what they didn't want us to see.

Maybe it was the portals or the buildings or the mother ship who knows, that video or videos is still out there somewhere.

I originally found it in a forum but it was years ago so I cannot remember which forum it was, I will of course keep searching when I get time to do so, meanwhile if anyone comes accross it please let me know.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by 1967sander
 



You can try to proof that my analysis is wrong.
Cause I will not.


I'll take that as a confession. By the way, you really don't think your next threads will turn out any differently, do you?



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1967sander
 



You can try to proof that my analysis is wrong.
Cause I will not.


I'll take that as a confession. By the way, you really don't think your next threads will turn out any differently, do you?


I object.
Objection #1. The prosecutor is reaching.
Objection #2. The prosecutor is dissembling.

There is a Big Fat J on this image. 1967sander did not put it there - he found it.
The Big Fat J has already been admitted into evidence.

Exhibit #1.

Exhibit #2



We are still waiting for the experts to submit their expert opinion on the Big Fat J.
We will let the jury will decide after the experts have been heard.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



There is a Big Fat J on this image. 1967sander did not put it there - he found it.


Objection. This has yet to be established by the testimony of the defendant, and is the reason for this hearing.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


If this was a legal trial then the imaging forensics team would have caused a mistrial. Sander used image AS12-47-6897, of which he used the lowest quality .jpeg he could find. Obviously he would find image artifacts in a low res, pre-edited non-archival image.

I found two better quality images, one a scan of a slide of said image; the other a 151mb .tiff containing a treasure trove of quality.

Image one re-sized by 50%, gamma exposed, and contrast enhanced:

img36.imageshack.us...

This version, from the high res source (www.archive.org...) has been gamma corrected, contrast enhanced, and re-sized by 75%:

img576.imageshack.us...

There are no flying J's, no alien cities, and no UFOs lurking in the rocks...just an amazing view of mankind's greatest achievement.

Again I say, if you want to prove your point, don't use pre manipulated images that already have been heavily edited. I admire what you're trying to accomplish-yet your methods are are wrong and your conclusions are based on misdiagnosis. No matter how much knowledge you may claim to have, others can know just as much.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I say move this to hoax bin already. Not only has it been established that the OP does not know what he is talking about he also refuses to address concerns about the images or the process. Such as how he is finding digital artifacts on images that were for decades normal film images and always published as such.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



There is a Big Fat J on this image. 1967sander did not put it there - he found it.


Objection. This has yet to be established by the testimony of the defendant, and is the reason for this hearing.


Objection. Sander is not the defendant. He is the key witness in the hearing.
The defendant is NASA.GOV


An independent analysis will confirm Sander's witness testimony using basic software. I used MS Paint. I used the paint bucket, clicked on a few pixels in the same general area of the error, et voila, the Big Fat J is a fact...

The Big Fat J exists on jpg files downloaded from the official source, NASA.GOV.
Here is the Pete Conrad picture, again.
www.nasa.gov...

My point is concluded.


jra

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
The Big Fat J exists on jpg files downloaded from the official source, NASA.GOV.


Well there's your problem. The images on nasa.gov are edited for aesthetic reasons, (but generally very poorly done in my opinion). This is why I never use those images. Try your same technique on this version from the Lunar Planetary Institute. AS12-47-6897. You won't find a big fat J in that one.

You have to be careful where you get your images from or at least be aware if any editing has been done to them, like colour correction, brightness/contrast adjustments, etc. The colour Apollo images from nasa.gov tend to have most of the colour removed for whatever reason.

I'd like to see both yourself and 1967sander apply your methods to images from the Lunar Planetary Institute or better yet, from the gateway to astronaut photography site (link) since they are high resolution images which have not been edited. You can also try it on images from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, but be aware that they have done some minor editing like colour correction on their images, but it's nothing like the editing done on the nasa.gov site.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NuminousCosmos
 


Objection. Archive.org is not NASA.gov.

The Internet Archive is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization whilst NASA is an agency of the US Government.

NASA states "NASA’s founding legislation in 1958 instructed NASA to “…provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information…”

Before NASA can work with Archive.org they need to have a special agreement in place. www.nasa.gov...


NASA Images, created through a partnership between NASA and the Internet Archive, offers public access to NASA's image, video, and audio collections in a single, searchable online resource: www.nasaimages.org... Source www.archive.org...



Special projects include OpenLibrary.org (link to faq) and NASAImages.org:

NASA Images was created through a Space Act Agreement between the Internet Archive and NASA to bring public access to NASA's image, video, and audio collections in a single, searchable resource. The NASA Images team works closely with all of the NASA centers to keep adding to the ever-growing collection at nasaimages.org. The site launched in July 2008 and now has more than 100,000 items online. Source www.archive.org...


This special agreement does not automatically serve to enhance NASA's credibility. Through these tentacle-like agreements NASA is able to flood the internet with dozens of different versions of the same image.

It is reasonable to believe that NASA.gov is closest to the source material because:
1. NASA claims to keep all the Apollo negatives
2. NASA authorizes who may, or may not, have access to Apollo negatives

It is reasonable to believe that Archive.org and NasaImages.org are further away from the source material.

Yet, irregardless of the aforementioned Space Act Agreement, any reasonable person would still conclude that NASA.gov published a "Hi-Res" jpg file of Pete Conrad here www.nasa.gov...

and this "Hi-Res" jpg file included errors of manipulation, most notably, the Big Fat J.

My point is concluded.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 1967sander
 
during the film showing stuff I did not understand nor could see any point to a lot of it. But, someone is either unattentative or just plain blind. ON as17-137-20925 their is a chervon or upside down v. Either it is a proof that part of earth was knocked off and became the moon. Or that the moon was used as a statging area for the people who joined the neanderthals(and wiped them outwith their deases) and took the earth to a new plain of existance. This could have been a marker for directions , since during a specific stage of earth development one can see a layer of space dust from past times that settled in place eons ago.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


I did not know you were a trained defense lawyer


Anyhow, Sander made the original contention that NASA deliberately altered images to hide evidence of alien architecture. He used images NASA admits are altered for mass consumption. Other, non altered sources of these images exist. The defendant decided to use altered photos-to prove that the photos were altered!

He has failed to prove his hypothesis. The standards of evidence were not met.

Case Closed.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Processes such as the Daubert standard are put in place in many courts to prevent expert witnesses using their titles/claimed special knowledge etc ... to influence a courtroom jury. Something like this wouldn't make it out of a Judge's office.


1.Empirical testing: the theory or technique must be falsifiable, refutable, and testable.


Current reasoning is the theory and technique are secret. Ergo, it would fail this test.


2.Subjected to peer review and publication.


See above.


3.Known or potential error rate.


Sander's claims it's a 100% error proof, but see above.


4.The existence and maintenance of standards and controls concerning its operation.


There is no 'chain of control' on this work, and see above.


5.Degree to which the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.


The theory and technique isn't even known according to Sanders.

The whole thing doesn't pass a single guideline. I believe regardless of your stance on NASA, whatever is on the moon, and what the government is hiding you shouldn't be using this as an example.

By all means present that you believe the images don't look right, but If you're willing to throw your weight behind any content simply because it agrees with your opinion you're going to find your influence in general being diminished.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Objection. Sander is not the defendant. He is the key witness in the hearing.
The defendant is NASA.GOV


In which case the presumption of innocence rests with NASA, and the witness must establish his credentials. He has not.


An independent analysis will confirm Sander's witness testimony using basic software. I used MS Paint. I used the paint bucket, clicked on a few pixels in the same general area of the error, et voila, the Big Fat J is a fact...


The key witness claims to have used a different image processing system, the exact nature of which he refuses to disclose. Your analysis cannot be considered "independent." Furthermore, evidence has been presented that other reproductions of the image in question do not produce the artifact.
edit on 9-1-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by NuminousCosmos
 


Now I know why I hate these American Court movies.

As requested I used the high resolution TIF file of 121.39 Mb, which should not show any strange things in the background. Here is a quick analysis of the file and indeed I did not find any letter "J" but larger darker areas than shown on the low - medium resolution images. NASA probably just edited this TIF for cosmetic reasons.

You cannot detect this kind of manipulation by increasing gamma and / or brightness. It needs more than that!

I made a screenshot of the analyzed / processed image, while opened in Irfanview. Check the data so you can verify that this is the same photo.

www.turboimagehost.com...

By the way: Did anyone ever notice that the "original high resolution TIF" is not showing the original perspective?
It is horizontally flipped ... lol

Greetz,

Sander

edit on 9-1-2012 by 1967sander because: c

edit on 9-1-2012 by 1967sander because: b

edit on 9-1-2012 by 1967sander because: e



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by 1967sander
 


Tell me exactly which steps you used to find these hidden details. If you can provide a breakdown it would certainly help us reproduce your findings independently.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by 1967sander
 


1967sander, I believe I asked this before, in the other nearly identical thread to this one.

SO far, in you "analyses", you have focused solely on the Hasselblad magazines and the stills from them, to allege that "alien architecture" has been "covered up".

Yet, never have you replied to the request to compare the other images that are out there, of the same terrain and landscapes and horizons. Such as the Data Acquisition Camera (DAC) 16-mm film footage. Especially the many hours of such, and especially on Apollo 15, 16 and 17 when it was mounted on the LRV (Lunar Rover) and filmed a great deal of scenes, un-cut and un-edited, except for the start/stop points when they stopped the camera to conserve the film.

AND, of course, the LIVE (at the time), but naturally "now recorded for us to watch later" TV video footage.

Tell everyone in your "audience" here......just how was every frame of 16-mm movie film "altered" by NASA? And, how was the live video broadcast "manipulated" to "hide" what you allege?


edit on Mon 9 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


You know as well as I do that the DAC footage NASA delivers is total crap. The worst of the worst in video quality.
How can I make a decent screen cap of such terrible material? The only files they give us are heavily compressed RM, MOV and MPG movies. The resolution is so bad that you end up with all kinds of noise and artifacts. The whole background would like a major city when you add too much contrast and brightness. I have tried it numerous time finding the same "objects" in NASA videos as I have found in the photos but NO I cannot find any video evidence in this bad video footage. Not even in the videos with the "original moonlanding footage" from archive.org.
As long as NASA does not release any original high quality, uncompressed raw video and photomaterials the material they offer the public is the only material we have. There is no other organisation that has the originals so we fully depend on what "they" give us.

It is not a question of that I do not want to but simply that I (or anyone) can deliver the evidence you ask for.

Greetz,

Sander



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by 1967sander
 


Well.....but you see, here's the rub:

IN the DAC footage there are many angles that re-create the same views that are part of the Hasselblad image library.

Doesn't really matter, does it, if you cannot get access to any individual frame of the actual 16-mm film......yes, it is archived for a reason, in our digital age.

BUT......the footage, in order to have "hidden" those alleged "alien structures" would have had to be altered frame-by-frame.....similar to a roto-scoping process, as is an old Hollywood film technique.

POINT is....we can watch all of that footage, and there is nothing on the horizon that needed to be "removed".....nor in the recordings of the live TV videos.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join