In "Dark Mission" and on his web site, Richard Hoagland makes much of a certain rock in the lunar crater called 'Shorty', which was Station 4 of EVA2, Apollo 17. Hoagland presents a retouched photograph of this rock, claiming that it is in fact a technical artifact of a lunar civilization that no longer exists. In the introduction to "Dark Mission" he writes that Apollo astronauts brought back samples of the technology of this defunct lunar civilization "for highly classified efforts at back engineering" [sic, he means reverse engineering]. While not specifically claiming that the Apollo 17 astronauts Cernan and Schmitt actually retrieved the rock from Shorty, he wrote that "they could have". I have refuted that claim previously on this blog, citing five reasons why they could not have. Hoagland's claim that it is an artifact will now be examined and tested.
I was interested in Hoagland's photo processing steps because I had seen one of the original Apollo 17 Hasselblad frames and could not understand how the "Data's Head" jpg could have been derived from it. Since Mike Bara, on the darkmission blog, had stated that this was a process that "anybody can repeat" I asked twice for guidance on the steps necessary to get from the whole frame to the highly decorated detail image. On the first occasion Bara replied that he was "not prepared to do your homework for you", and on the second occasion he replied "you don't know anything about how images are processed." Mr. Bara is neither polite nor helpful.
The image is a 7 kb file, 361 x 291 px., containing 34,509 colors (as measured by Paint Shop Pro v7.02 on a 2 GHz Hewlett-Packard Pavilion PC)
This is the information Hoagland offered, in a December 2007 interview for 'Project Camelot':
Kerry: (laughing more) You found a robot head in the bottom of a photograph...
Hoagland: In 14 photographs. It was photographed again and again and again and again as part of the panoramic sequence. We are trying now to go - we've gotten two copies of film - not just the web but film, (which is really crappy copies that were sent to us), and what I was able to do was a computerized robot comparison with C3PO.
I need higher resolution, but I've done some playing around on the computer even with those frames, and you get very interesting results. The two frames that were actually film that we used, we were able to superimpose them and that's when the eyes popped out.
The round irises, the camera eyes, that tell me this is not a desiccated human being lying there on the moon, one of the lunar colonists that we were positing was there at one point. This is an artificial life form, a robot.
So the "Data's Head" image was generated from two separate prints that Hoagland himself describes as "really crappy".
For my follow-up analysis, I ordered a very high definition scan from Houston Photo Imaging, a company that is trusted by the NASA photo library and can scan direct from the negative, ensuring highest possible definition. Anything but "crappy".
I don't know where Hoagland gets his count of 14 separate Hasselblad frames. Here is the complete inventory of that camera magazine -- I see the rock only on frames 21000, 21001, 21005, 21006 and 21027. I ordered frame 21000.
The scan was shipped on CD and was in tiff format, 46.1 MB, 5190 x 6175 px., 136,589 colors. It was processed as follows:
At stage 1, a rough crop was performed to isolate the skull-like rock and the feature known as "the turkey". This yielded a tiff of 564 KB, 522 x 560 px., 26,898 colors.
At stage 2, the image was rotated to match the orientation of Hoagland's image. It was discovered that Hoagland had rotated his image 45° counter-clockwise. The crop was then matched as closely as possible. The stage 2 tiff was 40 KB 181 x 145 px., 9,179 colors.
At stage 3, the image was enlarged by a factor of 2 to produce an image with the exact pixel dimensions of Hoagland's. The file was 111 KB, 18,439 colors.
For stage 4, the image was given to a trained Photoshop operator (Hoagland himself does not say what training he has had in photo enhancement. The safest assumption is 'none'.) The operator was asked to use any available image enhancement techniques to approach the style of Hoagland's manipulations. Software version was Adobe Photoshop CS2, v 9.0.2, on a 3 GHz PC running Windows XP.
- Tonality, color and contrast were altered using the 'Curves' feature. Input: 167 Output: 91.
- Shadows, midtones, and highlights were adjusted using the 'Levels' feature. Levels: 69, 1.00, 238.
The operator commented as follows:
All other adjustments to the photo, from reshaping the eyes, to darkening the shadow under the rock (and making the edges much more defined), and including adding shadow around the nose area, plus the odd color additions were made by someone, and not part of the original image.
The reference jpg is shown below, with the Hoagland original for direct comparison:
The photoshop file was 2,254 KB, 31,869 colors. The reference jpg is 60 KB, 18,907 colors. Note that this compares with the 7 kB of the Hoagland jpg, attesting to a high degree of compression (and consequently low fidelity). It's possible that a higher-quality master file was used for the book -- however, the overall quality of image repro in the book is so appalling it hardly matters.
It is plain that Hoagland manipulated this image in ways that go far beyond what is considered legitimate image enhancement. Despite the monochrome general appearance of the moon's surface (and notwithstanding the famous orange soil that was discovered on the rim of this very crater), there is color in these images. However, the 34,509 colors of Hoagland's image bear witness to his artificial colorization. If you inspect a de-rotated version of the 'Data's Head' image, it becomes obvious that rectangular patches have been independently colorized and then re-superimposed on the frame.
It's not so obvious on the rotated version, and this may explain why he performed the rotation (which has no innocent motive that I can determine).
I do not see the "camera lenses" that he says he sees, but if they are there, they are far more likely to be the result of an imperfect superimposition of his two scans rather than anything real. Hoagland's superimposition technique is dangerous because any slight change in perspective from frame to frame can make true matching impossible.
The bright red jaw-piece that has been described as "anodized" is simply not there. It's an artifact of processing, whether by design or incompetence.
I can't help wondering whether Hoagland enlisted the services of the Minnesota design studio that designed his web site -- VA Graphics. This company offers expertise in photo restoration, especially "facial reconstruction" and addition of "special effects and fantasy art". The name under which this company operates that business? Glad you asked. It's FIXYOURPHOTOS.COM. How very, very apposite.
My conclusion is that Richard Hoagland's image is fraudulent, and I call on the publisher, Adam Parfrey, to delete it from future editions of the book.
I stumbled across your blog as I was doing research for my own savaging of the material in Dark Mission. Excellent work!
Hey. For one thing, your basing your analysis on the wrong image for one, and two, dispite your efforts, even your rotation does not change anything in the image you are using to dispute the point that there is something unusual there, be it a robotic head, or another face like rock.
Now go to Mr Hoagland's website and analyze the image where he took several frames from the panoramic shots and superimposed them to create the image that makes the eyes show up. It is this photo that he used for a side by side comparison to the C3PO photo.
But then again, if this reality is too much for you to deal with and you want to hide behind your flawed cross analysis, by all means help yourself. It merely shows the limited ability of people like yourself to accept the true reality that is way byond your comprehension.
The source of the reference image was http://www.enterprisemission.com/datashead.htm
This is Mr. Hoagland's website.
The caption under the image is "Color enhanced version of “Data’s head” in Shorty crater."
How can this possibly be the wrong image? If you have a different image you'd like me to look at, please provide a URL.
But here's the main point: the resolution of the image I obtained from NASA photo library is 16 times better than the one Hoagland used. Have you grasped that reality?
So you have done this and that with photos you scored from the "NASA" archives. Now I am going stop right there and add emphasis again on "NASA"...
See this is where the common phrase of 'WAKE UP' comes into play. So here is your lesson for today!
First off you claim that the color of the moon is in fact monochrome, and I beg to differ with one account in mind...
NASA Astronauts Eugene A. Cernan speaking to Harrison H. (Jack) Schmitt:
Schmitt: Wait a minute..
Schitt: Where are the reflections? I've been fooled once. There is orange soil!
Cernan: Well don't move it until I see it.
Schmitt: It's orange all over!
Cernan: Don't move until i can see it.
Schmitt: I stirred it up with my feet.
Cernan: Hey, it is! I can see it from here!
Schmitt: It's orange!
Now we have basses to say that in fact the moon is NOT monochrome.
Back to your images where you have run all your tests and image enhancements to come up with a picture that is almost identical to the Hoagland picture with the exception of the added color. As well we don't know what strengths were used during the enhancements which accounts for difference in clarity between yours and his. (kinda reminds me of the whole 'mine is bigger than yours' argument) And for the record even if Hoagland used false color enhancements to spruce up the image is really irrelevant because frankly this is a rather interesting piece of "rock". Which is also in the same vain as the Cydonia face, as well as the lunar ruins of the so called 'city of glass' as well as the Mary Moorman photo which still to this day has not provided evidence without a doubt that what we are seeing in that picture is actually what others claim to be present. And if I may draw your attention to the outlaying area around the 'rock' you will noticed you can actually see the area in which the color enhancement is the strongest and to the top left you will noticed another small 'red' dot, the same red along the bottom corner of the 'rock'
See the problem here is your not out for the truth, you are out to debunk based on faulty information from not only you but the person you claim that has experience in using 'Photoshop' (LOL). I hate to be the barer of bad news but anyone with any computer knowledge can learn enough about any version of Photoshop enough to be able to enhance photos to any degree so that in itself is obsolete!
We ill need people like you to be dancing around making accusations simply because you, for whatever reason, cannot stomach the idea that there are beings among us far greater than human intelligence could even begin to understand! And those beings have left behind relics of a time long past and forgotten!
>>First off you claim that the color of the moon is in fact monochrome..<<
With good reason, yes. I did not neglect to mention the orange soil, as you will see if you re-read the thread. The reason it was so remarkable is, of course, that it is unique.
>>As well we don't know what strengths were used during the enhancements which accounts for difference in clarity between yours and his.<<
We know what processes were used by me and my photoshop expert, because I have stated them. Hoagland and Bara refuse to be equally open about their process, because they have no respect for, or understanding of, the scientific method.
>>you will noticed [sic] you can actually see the area in which the color enhancement is the strongest <<
Yes, exactly. Taken together with the 45° rotation and the 34,509 colors in Hoagland's image, this is strong evidence of fraud.
>>there are beings among us far greater than human intelligence could even begin to understand! And those beings have left behind relics of a time long past and forgotten!<<
How do you know that?
This is a pointless argument but I will appease you in this by answering your final question of..
>>How do you know that?<<
It's simple actually if you take the time to think about it with common sense involved with your reasoning.
See given the determined age of our own planet and age of the universe along with the determined age of the thousands and thousands of other star clusters with the idea that a small fraction of those have the right conditions to support life (ie. location of planets in relative to their sun, the presence of certain gasses and minerals, ectectect.) and on a spiritual level wether if you believe in a creator, or god or w/e without any attachment to religion what so ever. Given the complexity of us as human beings and that in itself being relatively simple in comparison to the outlay of the universe itself AND the fact that we do not use our entire brain at the same time for any known function gives plenty of evidence!
The very idea that we are the most complex being in the entire universe, or multiverse for that matter, is pompous and arrogant and if you do not believe other wise than you have no business commenting on something you obviously have no inkling of knowledge concerning!
I'm very familiar with the work of Drake and Sagan on exobiology, as it happens, so I presume you allow me to comment further.
I guess I misunderstood you. When you wrote "beings among us" I took that to mean right here on planet Earth. Perhaps you meant "among us" in some other sense.
I might add that the Moon is one of the least likely places in the entire universe for exobiology. Nobody except crazies like Hoagland & Bara thinks there's any chance that life ever existed there.
You see this is the kind of thinking im referring too right here. As far as I am aware no one has ever made the statement that some form of life may have 'originated' on the moon itself. What they are getting at is that some form of life 'put' themselves on the lunar surface. Even if you are so set that Hoagland is a moron doesn't make a bit of difference what so ever because there are 100s of books out there talking about the same thing over and over again...
And what is that you ask? Why its all the remains of a once civilization or colonization on the lunar surface. Or in my personal opinion perhaps a 'jump point' from one area to another within this solar system. See the idea that maybe there are infact ruins there is not a question anymore. Any person with an IQ over 30 could see in the 100s...hell 1000s of photos, the remains of structures much like the photos from mars of the surrounding area of 'the face'.
I am truly sorry I keep attacking you on your own website but seriously...how can someone with the intelligence you obviously posses keep slamming in to walls over and over again? I tell you how I take your train of thought. It much reminds me of the way a stubborn, old church father who absolutely refuses to see anything but what is printed in his little book of faith! WAKE UP, the truth is everywhere around you if only you will stop and open your eyes! The idea is not to take everything as face value for that is what has gotten our civilization into the trouble we are in now but to take away from it what is fact and what is not and then fit the pieces of the puzzle together. Not force the pieces to make them fit into a so called 'reality' for that is exactly what has dumbed us all down in the first place!
KVLTdotcom reminds me that no matter where you go in the world, there is no shortage of people who are arrogant enough to think that they know the answer to the question of whether we are alone.
The idea that we can't be alone in the universe is equally as arrogant as the opposite, given that it is based on guesswork, not science. How does life happen? You don't know. Therefore you can't know how likely it is to happen. If there are X places in the universe it could happen and the odds are X/100 to 1, the probability is that there are about 100 places where life has occurred. If the odds are 100X to 1, we're quite likely to be alone. The only thing we know about this question is that we don't know the answer to it, because we don't have enough information.
To think you can answer this question is the truly arrogant position.
Bottom line: It still looks like a head.
Glen, I'm not sure that's the bottom line exactly. The bottom line of my analysis is that Hoagland faked it.
However, I have no problem with you writing that it looks like a head. What I have a problem with is Hoagland and Bara insisting that it actually IS a head.
Before making such claims as "fraud" and "faked" I'd make sure that you have all the facts straight which you obviously do not. Most noted that the frames that show the detail in discussion is on the following frames that I found in 10 minutes in the Apollo Image Archive:
All images Are AS17 Mag 137 and are as follows as I found in hi-res even: 20994, 20995, 20996, 20997, 20998, 20999, 21000, 21001, 21005, 21006, 21027. Now thats 11 images instead of the of the 5 you offered. Three less than Hoagland suggested.
Now you go as far to call someone a fraud and don't even take the time to look at ALL the data [pun intended].
I just think you want to bash Richard Hoagland and Mike Bara. So stick to one or the other since you obvously cannot look up images. You, yourself cannot qualify as any imagery expert either!
Let me quote you even from your article of how much detail and time you spent on ANALYSIS of the imagery in question here....
As stated from your article:
"I don't know where Hoagland gets his count of 14 separate Hasselblad frames. Here is the complete inventory of that camera magazine -- I see the rock only on frames 21000, 21001, 21005, 21006 and 21027. I ordered frame 21000."
You see only those images? Only because you took no real time to look. You just wanted a reason to bash at someone, that actually takes the time to stand for what they believe in. Then take the heat for having an opinion that differs from your own. Then you cannot even offer facts that are true or non-distored yourself. WOW I should read everything you post I bet everything you post has rhetoric included exactly like that which you state you hate DISTORTION!
>>You see only those images? Only because you took no real time to look.<<
Yes, that's true. Having found the skull-shaped rock in a few images I didn't feel it was very important to scrutinize every frame that might have shown it as well. I'm happy to accept your 11 frame numbers without comment.
This is a minor point and in no way abates my accusation of fraud. The fraud is in the processing of the image, not in the number of frames in which it appears.
I made no claim to be an imagery expert, anon. If you re-read my piece you may note that I gave the processing phase of my investigation to somebody who is.
You need no image enhancement to see the fact that it looks like a head!
Just because his image details don't match yours, during "enhancement", does not make an image a "fake"!
Now would the saving process be the same for using ENVII as compared to Photoshop CS?
Again you state that you OUTSOURCED you IMAGERY ANALYSIS, becuase you, are unable to do the "enhancements yourself", did that decision change the outcome of the DATA, [again pun intended], of course your not going to get the same results , because you are not even completeting this REPORT of your own data collection, its based upon someone else and that right there proves the point that your only goal is distortion, twisting of the facts which you yourself state you do not lke these people Richard Hoagland and Mike Bara doing!!!!!!!
Again your goal, is bashing these people that think differently from you, such a GOAL!
AS QUOTED FROM YOUR ARTICLE:
"I ordered a very high definition scan from houston photo imagery a company trusted by the NASA Photo Library and can scan direct from the negative, ensuring highest possible definition. Anything but "crappy"."
Then you said you out dsourcecd the imagery but as your article states, as qouted again!:
"For stage 4, the image was given to a trained Photoshop operator (Hoagland himself does not say what training he has had in photo enhancement. The safest assumption is 'none'.) The operator was asked to use any available image enhancement techniques to approach the style of Hoagland's manipulations. Software version was Adobe Photoshop CS2, v 9.0.2, on a 3 GHz PC running Windows XP."
You didn't give the image to the IMAGERY EXPERTS, till stage four????
WHAT THE HECK HERE!!!!!
So you claim that your outsourcing, but you did the first three stages of the "ENHANCEMENT", YOURSELF!!!!
EXPAT, no wonder you got different results, you got the effect that you wanted, DISTORTION!
Do you think that people cannot read and find errors in your work either?
What is your goal here???
>>So you claim that your outsourcing, but you did the first three stages of the "ENHANCEMENT", YOURSELF!!!!<<
YES!!!!!! THAT'S RIIIIIIIGHTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not a photo processing expert, but even I am capable of cropping, rotating and resizing without error.
>>you got the effect that you wanted, DISTORTION!<<
It's Hoagland who distorted, by over-colorizing and then rotating 45° to obfuscate his color stripping.
>>What is your goal here???<<
The goal of this blog is stated in its masthead.
Thanks for your interest.
i do not agree with your conclusion, proves noting at all sorry , peace and light .
nice debate people, but why the debate? we have the so called technology to go to the moon, although not that convinced we ever did! and thats not for debate.why dont we just go get it, thats if we dont have it already, and if we do, lets tell the public
Good morning anonymous.
Perhaps you didn't really read this thread. The point is that this rock is NOT the artifact of a civilization and therefore there's no reason for retrieving it. By the way, it's not true that we have have the technology to return to the Moon at present. Many people are upset about that.
if you think that this is a fraud, and you are convinced, then maybe the entire moon landing could be faked and all photgraphs could be made to look like " we have been to the moon " do you think that we had the technology to go to the moon in the 60`s? it is the good people like you that convice me and others that with your proof of fraud, that this is just a game we are playing, my biggest problem with the whole moon thing is our radiation belts, i mean did we have the technology to survie going through them? i still stress that modern technology has progressed and we are so far advanced since the last so called moon landings, that going there now should be a breeze, and as this is a important debate, whilst we are there then, this rock/head should be collected or at least proved either way.. also with our modern telescopes and statelites it should be easy to scan the area of moon in question/debate to get very close up pictures like they have done with the face of mars, which happens to be a lot further away than the moon, so as to put a closer on this. please do not think that i am trying to put you or anyone down, i am open minded and do not think that we the humans are so special that we have this entire unverse to ourselves, please continue your work as i find it interesting, lets face it the governments of this world will not tell us the truth
I am a firm a strong believer in the fact of aliens and more than likely interaction with them. Also I am a frequent poster on RCH's FaceBook page.
I have to say this to you. Thanks for all your effort in showing the facts as you find them, I am very grateful of this because all people should be accountable and questioned, not just the ones we do not agree with. I find indoctrination can work both ways and many, many people seem to have become indoctrinated by RCH and will blindly follow him with out question and this is very wrong. When I do question him I either get ignored or an arrogant reply, it seems because I am seen as below this eminent scientist, yet we all know he is a pseudo-scientist.
I don't know if it's personal with you but for what ever reason, thank you for your great effoerts and the best of luck.....Note I give my name unlike the rest ;~)
Im in agreement with the writer here, the lack of openness is quite obvious. I just happened to run into the title of Mike Bara's book, and I've been looking for some sort of critique of it, as it sounds too good to be true.
You have to be skeptical of people like this, in my opinion this could be just another way for him to make money. Books, interviews, TV shows, conferences, seminars, etc. I'd like to know how much more money he's made from his "exposing" of NASA, as compared to his job as an engineer. (I'm an engineering student)
-Continued from above (engineering student)
Oh, and to all the people claiming that the rock looks like a head, SO WHAT? You can find rocks and rock formations in the shape of anything, THERE ARE TRILLIONS OF ROCKS. I should also point out that even if you cant find a rock in a certain shape, chances are that of all the rocks in the universe, by looking at it in different light and from different angles, its fair to say that you could recognize pretty much any object imaginable. And not to mention that if you take a fuzzy photo in low resolution of said rock, it will look often look even more like what you think it does. Under these conditions, then if you DO happen to see something out of place in a photo, your best bet is to see if it has any connection to the area where the photo was taken. IE: if you think you see a baby bottle shaped object in a picture, is this someplace where people could take a child? Or is this in the middle of some god forsaken desert on top of a mountain? If it is the latter, then logically, you would come to the conclusion that it is just a rock. Or if you see the shape of a head on the moon....... I'm sure you can complete that thought.
Thanks for your contribution, anon.
With your interest in tampered pictures, didnt u find anything on the apollo 11 ones ? the horizons, anything ?
No, nothing of any note. Thanks for participating.
Excellent! ~Thank you very much for once again bringing even more evidence of Richard Hoaxland's numerous fraud's to light!
When is he going to quit?
Both him and Thom Bearden are flat out extreme LYING FRAUD's, - SCAMMING SCAMMER'S who need to be EXPOSED and RUN OUT OF THE PUBLIC LIMELIGHT!~
Expat open your mind and seal your words if they don't contain enlightenment, for the only contribution your putting forth is propaganda and a closed mind. The truth will come out one way or another.
NASA wouldnt release the true photograph to you even If you had your lips pressed firmly against their asscheeks.
How do you know that, anon?
so, in a effort to disprove and expose the image as a fraud, you came with the same, if slightly blurrier result? interesting
No, I posted a _more_accurate_ image. One that derived from the original negative and was not color-enhanced.
Man, I heard richard hoaxland going on about the robot head photograph on coast to coast. I googled to get more info. I am glad to have run across this site, where someone has gone through the trouble of using the scientific method on said photograph. Great job sir. And great service to the paranormal community. It is people like hoagland that cause the ridicule of people that might have some type of paranormal claim of evidence.
I cannot believe I overlooked this analysis all these years! Thanks for posting it. Although I realize Hoagland didn't claim the following as fact, I do recall him suggesting perhaps that the Apollo crew brought back the 'head' and NASA 'downloaded' its contents, suggesting the head had recorded or digital information within in. I think Hoagland simply gets lost in what he HOPES he believes is true combined with his conclusional LEAPS and bounds. The head looks as much like C3P0 as it does a Stormtroppers mask. Luckily Hoagland didn't make the connection between the 'robot head' and 'the turkey', else he may have suggested the head was part of some alien robo new-world exploration, using a Mayflower ship, Plymouth rock, and masonic connection. :)
Yes, he did indeed say that although I don't think that hilarious piece of fantasy is in the book.
Well, I can't comment on every single one of your posts because they're far too many, and Expat I suggest you stop waiting your fingers. It's like competing in the special Olympics: Even if you win, you're still retarded. (cite: De-motivation poster).
I will tell you however, being an avid amateur astronomer (meaning I don't get paid for my efforts, I do it for the pleasure thereof), an astrophotgrapher (I take pictures of the astronomical objects, including the moon), and also an image manipulation expert:
That you shouldn't read too much into this picture of a 'head' until it is photographed from a different angle. It's obviously too low detail to tell, but Richard Hoagland (one of the less interesting and more annoying 'researchers') does push the limits of reality. If you're not quite clever enough to realize that, you're on your own - but surely you do.
The other question is.... if you were a robot, why would you leave your head on the moon, and why would you be on the moon and not on earth, and what reasonable explanation would there be for making yourself look like a human (which may not have existed yet) rather than a more reasonable shape?
Perhaps a shape where you wouldn't have a head to get knocked off may have been a smarter idea :)
Regardless, as an expert image manipulator.
a) I would not have compiled these images under either of the methods you mentioned.
b) Hoagland has 'enhanced' these images far beyond what I would consider reasonable in order to support his case.
I will add, that the images that come from hubble, and that I take on a monthly basis through the telescope are mostly in black and white. Images of for instance the Andromeda galaxy for instance do not contain colour, it is added later. Often different filters are used for hydrogen, oxygen, iron etc and are given 'fake colours' in order to differentiate them. ie. Oxygen is often coloured green from NASA on astronomical pictures.
Hydrogen is not blue, Oxygen is obviously not green.
And the moon doesn't have a green robot head sitting on some grass on it.
Lay off the acid.
Here's the thing and you see it all the time from the blurry photo equals definitive proof of alien architecture or artifacts on the moon or mars.
Now don't get me wrong I would love it if this really was a robot head laying on the lunar surface.
Its just that its a blurry photo of what is most likely a rock albeit one that does bear striking resemblance to a head or skull of a human.
Anyone with even a passing familiarity with Photoshop or other image manipulation tools knows that you can modify any digital image to your hearts content.
So I would conclude that expat does have a good point.
That said to have definitive proof either way you would need a much better photo or better yet a first hand look at the object in question.
If in fact there are remains of alien architecture and artifacts on the moon or mars it would seem we are on the cusp of it being impossible to hide for much longer given all the space exploration centered activity taking place around the globe.
IT WAS A ROBOT HEAD!!!!
there's a Turkey on the moon!!!!!!
Thanks for taking the trouble, Mike. It's an own goal.
I took the original photo from the link you supplied
put it in photoshop, went to the 'image' menu, clicked 'hue/saturation', turned up the saturation, and the red band at the base of that object appeared just like in the Hoagland photo. It doesn't seem too sneaky, but I'd like to know what your response is.
Thanks for your contribution. It sounds like you did what Mike Bara did in this demo.
Trouble is, slamming color saturation to max isn't justified at all and is bound to give you a result that does not represent reality.
I addressed the question more fully in this blogpost.
Concerning the previous post, I actually did not watch any video or demo, I just downloaded the image and began to incrementally increase the saturation only. And while cranking it all the way up might not be wise, merely moving it 1-5 notches + causes crimson to clearly become visible on the object. Such a small increment strongly supports the idea that whatever color is being emphasized by the extreme saturation shift you suggest (+100) is present in the original, unaltered image and not a product of image degradation.
Once again I refer you to my January 2013 blogpost in which I show the result of performing the same operation on the far better .tiff image.
I'm extremely interested in these NASA photographs of the so called robot head / rock found on the Shorty crater and I'm with it being a robot head, I'm also very curious as not much has been said about that skull or as some have referred to it as a Storm Trooper helmet found in Mars Gusev crater from photos from the Spirit rover.
Now rocks are one thing but this does NOT look like any rock no way shape or form so why isn't this discussed more ? why hasn't NASA taken more photos of it and why didn't the team who operates these rovers take some measures to move it to examine it ? Mike Bara just touched on this as something he would not ant to meet in an alley in his book Ancient Aliens 2, was any idea about size ever considered or mentioned in any discussion on this skull or helmet ? I wish someone would post an artists rendition of what this would have looked like image, could be interesting.
BTW I'm happy that Mike Bara and Richard Hoagland put out these books as everyone seems so against that we are or have been visited by extraterrestrial civilizations in the distant past and in modern days that these gentlemen and others like them give hope that some day we will discover that we are not alone and never have been and someday disclosure will come and will be known that NASA will Not A Secret Anymore.
Thanks for the comment Karl. The rock in Shorty is just a rock. What Mike Bara writes and says about it is simply NOT TRUE.
By "Storm Trooper helmet" you mean this, I assume. It just looks like a helmet, that does not mean it actually is one. NASA hasn't taken more photos of it because it's not that interesting.
Looks like you've been having the same argument for over 8 years now. You're something of a one-trick pony, and not a very successful one either, aren't you? Hugs and kisses.
Post a Comment