gmantoo, the only way is to turn into a graphic editing program and begin experimenting with it.
The following video. I know I know, most people think that I went pixel by pixel guessing what was in there.
But What I did is play with luminosity of overall pixel sets, changing until I see there are no smooth areas.
Then I began finding what was in there .... It's difficult to believe but if I could do it everybody can do it (the ones ineterested and with enough desire to pull it through.
What do I have to gain or lose? Disinfo agent? forget it man. I am showing this with no purpose other than you guys realize it can be done.
If this is really the extent of the changes they make to these photographs, then we really have no hope of finding anything at all.
If this is the case, maybe the best we can do is to point out the places which have been changed but anything more, is then not even speculation but just pure imagination and fiction.
Fruitnut1 Thank you for this lesson as it shows we must be open to the context of the various things to try to understand the details and there are arguments based on this fragmented evidence not the least important.
Fruitnut1 Thank you for this lesson as it shows we must be open to the context of the various things to try to understand the details and there are arguments based on this fragmented evidence not the least important.
qmantoo, it is difficult to find one specific outcome particularly when the view point is perhaps very unusual it's also difficult to compare two pictures which are both processed in order to hide data. I'm going to make me aware of some aspects of how the tampering is done it is quite clear that the shadows are expanded and distorted also sharp lines are treated similar way.
If this which I think is a radio antenna is right it shows the surface adjacent to the moon is fake because it has the same texture as the disk.
Maybe other pictures of the same place will show whether these are radio telescope like things? To me, they do not look as if they are, but other perspectives often clear up a difference of opinion.
It suggests many things that hypothesis antennas (radio antennas) is correct because I've discovered disk shaped object resting on a foundation that forms about 45 degree angle on the disk, that it maintains. This disc is About to 10-12 km in diameter
The main image is quite diceptive.. Its to different (though close) locations spliced together. The antenna point is over different locations in each shot. You can see th awful splice point that intersects the antenna, on left frame and following the splice upwards and closely you'll see geographic interrupts due to differing locations.. There are guys on youtube and ion the web pumping this out as a bridge.. Even on CNN, really shows the true level thoughs in the community would go to to make a buck! Treat this images with caution. Im sure there are other anomalies in the frame but as for this feature , well dont say i ddnt warn you..
The other images are interesting (fruit) Hi contrast images are almost a no no to push with more contrast.. Unless you really can understand the original films contrasts levels. These boys are stripped of a lot of data. High contrast has a habit of locking detail out once published. Again proceed with caution. Sometimes you need a brush and not a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Relaxing the eyes and just looking around the point in question will give up afew clues. maybe?
Damned ignorance of language. It is a shame with itself. But the basic your thought has understood. Thanks.
The main image is quite diceptive.. Its to different (though close) locations spliced together. The antenna point is over different locations in each shot. You can see th awful splice point that intersects the antenna, on left frame and following the splice upwards and closely you'll see geographic interrupts due to differing locations.. There are guys on youtube and ion the web pumping this out as a bridge.. Even on CNN, really shows the true level thoughs in the community would go to to make a buck! Treat this images with caution. Im sure there are other anomalies in the frame but as for this feature , well dont say i ddnt warn you..
The other images are interesting (fruit) Hi contrast images are almost a no no to push with more contrast.. Unless you really can understand the original films contrasts levels. These boys are stripped of a lot of data. High contrast has a habit of locking detail out once published. Again proceed with caution. Sometimes you need a brush and not a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Relaxing the eyes and just looking around the point in question will give up afew clues. maybe?
Here is the full image for discussion, there are TWO areas of that anomaly both starting with an elevated mechanical looking structure and all throw shadows. Also both lines show the same semi-circular formations in front.
As far as I can see, the structure marked as 'A' in that photo is a wiggly rille-type thing and crosses terrain that is raised or lowered. This means that it cannot be the result of a lava outflow, so I wonder what the current theory is as to what causes this type of structure.
gogon do your last post have something to do with your previouse one?
Excuse, in the beginning has not understood your question. Yes, concerns the theme name ( http://www.keithlaney.net/ApolloOrbitalimages/apollo_15_orbital_images.htm )