NASA has released images of the other side of the Moon that we've never seen bef

[ArMaP]

Only to find that years later with the rise of the information age people can uncover what they had tried so desperately to hide.

If they removed any thing nobody can put it back, removed is removed.

[Lunarstation]

And doing that you reduced even more the image quality.

Many people think that images with higher contrast have more detail, but it's usually the opposite. Almost any time you change something in an image you are reducing its quality. The only action that increases detail and doesn't remove any data is "stretching" the image, as that "spreads" all the colours or grey levels in an image to all the available possibilities, so an image that has the darkest grey level as 10 and the brightest at 240 is changed so the darkest becomes 0 and the brightest 255. By separating more the different levels of grey it's easier for people to see more detail, although it's the same as before.

The quality was rubbish to start with.

Rubbish in = Rubbish out.  Its a loosing battle in some respects however I still stand by what I said by reducing contrast and brightness you can start to see anomalies in images and videos from NASA and other agencies..  I'm still learning how to do it, im not an expert photo/video editor  The following images from apollo 11 help to show how bright overexposure helps obscure detail.  Part of the problem is many of the images are not great quality to start with.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/150974590@N04/35905515955/in/dateposted-public/

[Lunarstation]

If they removed any thing nobody can put it back, removed is removed.

Not removed but obscured, they are dab hands at it now.  Just look at LROC.  They have made the moon look as if it is made out of cement.

[ArMaP]

The quality was rubbish to start with.

Start by working with TIFF images, if available, that way you are not going to be enhancing JPEG artefacts.

Rubbish in = Rubbish out.  Its a loosing battle in some respects however I still stand by what I said by reducing contrast and brightness you can start to see anomalies in images and videos from NASA and other agencies..

I'm sure you can see anomalies, my doubt is if that they were there before or were created by your processing.

I'm still learning how to do it, im not an expert photo/video editor  The following images from apollo 11 help to show how bright overexposure helps obscure detail.  Part of the problem is many of the images are not great quality to start with.

The first thing to learn is that there are no miracles, if you work with a JPEG you will see some artefacts, specially after enhancing the image, as that enhances the artefacts.

I have seen many, many times people talking about anomalies that are only JPEG artefacts.

[ArMaP]

Not removed but obscured, they are dab hands at it now.  Just look at LROC.  They have made the moon look as if it is made out of cement.

If they wanted to hide things they would do it and nobody would notice a thing.

[Lunarstation]

If they wanted to hide things they would do it and nobody would notice a thing.

They do but a 1960's photo lab is no match for modern computers.

Jpeg artifacts or Bln year old alien technology? I dont buy the Jpeg argument sorry mate.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/150974590@N04/sets/72157684038222800

[ArMaP]

They do but a 1960's photo lab is no match for modern computers.

Wrong, a 1960s photo lab could whatever they wanted with the photos.

My elder sister is a professional photographer and she had some years ago she had a lab. One thing that can be done in a lab to a negative or a photo is to paint directly in it with a thin brush and black ink. If the changes are from black to white (or transparent, if it's on the film) then they scrape the emulsion from the surface of the film.

Jpeg artifacts or Bln year old alien technology? I dont buy the Jpeg argument sorry mate.

I'm not selling it. 

But you should consider JPEG artefacts, they do exist, and I think I saw some cases in your video. I will try to find some.

[Lunarstation]

But you should consider JPEG artefacts, they do exist, and I think I saw some cases in your video. I will try to find some.

Not everything worth looking at is in tiff format.
You will be able to find JPEG artefacts in some of my images agreed, part of the problem is caused by blowing up the images too big where we start to loose coherency in the image and we get pixilation (anything image software wise by Microdross isnt even worth using, their picture editing tools are less than useless)  What I do to try to negate that is to use a Jewellers Loop to really get a good look at the images on a reasonable quality display without blowing them up where they start to break apart, not easy when I'm doing everything on the cheap.  When you look at an image like AS08-12-2189 it's easy to get carried away because it is such a significant photo however glass domes are not a JPEG artefact.  I've noticed the moon seems to have a hex lattice sub structure to it, like a sort of alien bee hive?

[ArMaP]

Not everything worth looking at is in tiff format.

Yes, that's a problem, but there are several photos in TIFF format available, starting with most of those low contrast images, like AS10-27-3875, on the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth. Most (all, if they finished working on them, I haven't followed the project for some time) of the panoramic and metric photos from Apollo 15, 16 and 17 were scanned at high resolutions and are available in huge (1.2 GB) versions from the Apollo Image Archive.

When you look at an image like AS08-12-2189 it's easy to get carried away because it is such a significant photo however glass domes are not a JPEG artefact.

I'm sure what you call "glass domes" are not JPEG artefacts, as those artefacts are typically rectangular.

I've noticed the moon seems to have a hex lattice sub structure to it, like a sort of alien bee hive?

I've seen that on some photos, but don't forget that an hexagon is the easiest shape to make, you just have to draw several same size circles next to each other, they arrange themselves hexagonally.

[Lunarstation]

AS10-27-3875 is one of the most compelling images IMO because it shows many very interesting artefacts.  Images of entities are ìncredibly thin on the ground, the beings ard incredibly illusive for sure.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/150974590@N04/albums/72157686150059566

I can see a masquarading android head where just below at the 5'Oclock possition an entity can be seen?  I am working on producing the images in a much higher clarity.



It raises more questions than it answers.

[ArMaP]

Your link isn't working.

[Lunarstation]

Your link isn't working.

https://www.flickr.com/gp/150974590@N04/8ZxU67

[ArMaP]

https://www.flickr.com/gp/150974590@N04/8ZxU67

That s good example of how JPEG artefacts may change an image.

Here's a GIF animation that shows the JPEG blocks grid over the image, to show how those straight lines are the result of the JPEG compression.
The image was resized to 500% to make it easier to see the 8x8 pixel blocks.



And here's the same area from a TIFF version, at 100%.

[Lunarstation]

Like I said, if I could find images such as AS08-12-2189 and 2190 in Tiff format I would use them.

I took a screenshot from that video I ruined.  Its incredible, amazing structures and a biosphere in the lower area.

Whadaya think?

https://flic.kr/p/WynnJg

There is no hiding it.....

[Lunarstation]

We know next to nothing about our true history, thanks to stuffy old warmongers in suits from  60 years ago.