It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Are NASA tricking us with inverted pictures?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 03:21 PM

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Normally such features are the result of a piece of rock rolling across the surface that leaves a furrow as it travels. But in NASA's picture these features are raised!

No, they look like furrows, your brain is fooling you.

So, I inverted the picture!

And darkened it, as noticed by several members, but forgot to mention that.

I think this picture looks much more natural, and those straight line features are now furrows, just as we'd expect!

No, just as you expect (for whatever reason), it doesn't look more natural to me.

After some 12 years of looking at Mars and Moon photos I learned that I was always expecting light sources to come from the top left corner of the image, so if the light came from the opposite direction I would see things as if they were inverted (the 180º rotation effect, similar to inverting the colours, as demonstrated by some members), so I started rotating all photos to get used to it, and now I don't have that problem any more.

Also, the bright spots that have intrigued so many people are now black spots! Much more likely than bright spots!

Please look closely at both pictures, which do you think looks more natural?

Both look natural.

The next picture is of the moon. On the left is the original picture, on the right I have inverted it. Notice how the craters are now raised, just like the pictures of Ceres!
No, the craters look raised to some people (you included), but not to all.

So what's more likely, bright spots on Ceres or dark spots?

Bright spots.

Has nasa inverted the picture so that bright spots appear?


causing the public to be more willing to supply nasa with more money?

Only the people that see this as reality show, those really interested in science think differently.

This is ats and I reserve the right to wear my CT hat

No problems with that, as long as you don't convince yourself that your "explanation" is the only one possible.

posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 03:36 PM
I always have the same logical problem/question when it comes to suggestions that NASA or other space agencies might be deliberately misleading us through imagery:

If they are trying to conceal something from us, why show us the images at all in the first place? Let alone images which people might find particularly interesting or, in this instance, "suspicious?"


posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 04:22 PM
Here's a good example of the lighting illusion we're seeing:

Figure 1.

Your brain is interpreting these as a bunch of bumps and indents, but which are which?

I first heard about this when I read an article about how National Geographic makes airbrush maps. When they made a map of Mt. Everest, they had to show it sun-lit from the north (northwest, actually) even though the sun never shines on it from that direction. If they had painted it with the sunlight coming from the south - which it does, in real life (I've seen it. Put it on your "bucket list". Seriously, wow) - that would have been confusing to the eye.

Anyway, in the illusion picture, above, if the artist had put the light straight above, then the individual objects would resolve pretty easily. Here, I rearrainged them so that the indents appear at the top, and the bumps appear at the bottom (though remember - all of these circles are actually identical; only their orientation has changed):

Figure 2.

posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 06:39 PM
Well, usually I think the "NASA blurred stuff!" is hilarious. It's not as if NASA is required to show any photo they don't want to. Why in the world would they even bother photoshopping images when they could just file them away and never release them to the public?

In the case of this picture, it actually would make sense.. NASA needs to generate interest in what they do to draw in funds. Nothing like shiny spots on a rock to draw interest! However, I don't think they would do this. I think too many people would be in the know, and I personally feel that the scientists and astronauts and engineers and the rest at NASA have too much integrity than to invert pictures to try and draw in interest. Heck.. there are plenty of normal but odd things going on in space to keep interest going. Like the hexagonal storms on Saturn, for example.

And imo you are imaging things - the original pictures look quite natural and normal. it's only your opinion OP, that they don't look natural in some way.

posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 08:12 PM
Has anyone suggested the furrows in the OP are the tracks of rocks in lo gravity skipping and rolling across the surface from some impactor?

Sorry, I didna read the whole thing.

posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 10:09 PM

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: jonnywhite

It does bring out the details around the spot. That's interesting. What created those features? Is it standard fare in a crater? I'm not sure if those are crevices or ridges in the original image which surround hte spot.

The details around the spot(s) might hint what they're. Probably geologic in nature? It doesn't look smooth; looks ragged and branching.

The bright spots as we see them in the image are not the actual shape of what is there. The bright spots are over-exposed pixels caused by a reflection that is brighter than the image sensors can detect at the exposure times being used. The real shape of whatever is causing that reflection is obscured by the over-exposed pixels.

We have to wait to get better (and less over-exposed) images to see what the shape of the reflective material really is.

I'm not talking about the spot itself. I'm talking about the topography around the spot. The OP's image which is inverted and darkened makes the spot look like a lake. This is because the terrain around the spot aids the illusion. In the original image these areas are not as bright as the overexposed spots, so they're genuine data, as features can be clearly seen. That's why I asked if these features hint at what the spots are?

This is the original image linked in the OP:

Look at the terrain immediatley surrounding the bright spot(s). The spots themselves are white-ish, or overexposed as you say. But the terrain immediatley adjacent is not. These're hte features in the OP's image which aided the illusion there was a lake in the place of the spots. These features resembled channels. In the original image these features obviously aren't "channels", but the shape is consistent. My only question is which parts are crevices and which are ridges? And could it be whatever causes these spots has moved over time, creating these "channel-like" features? Sort of like how the ice sliding across the north american continent shaped it.

There's a sharpened image of this area which highlights better what I'm trying to say. The image here is blurrier. Here's the post:

Here's another image of the area showing more of the terrain:

It's clear enough to me anyway the crater with the spot(s) has distinct character versus the rest of what's shown there. I don't think ti's a stretch to say whatever caused the spots might also change or contribute to the surrounding topography in the crater.
edit on 11-6-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 10:30 PM
there are reports of domes on the moon being destroyed long ago when there was actually an alien outpost there

posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 11:07 PM

originally posted by: blacktie
there are reports of domes on the moon being destroyed long ago when there was actually an alien outpost there

There are also reports of leprechauns having a pot of gold at the base of every rainbow.

posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 02:00 AM
Well for those wondering, the dark holes in a crater would most likely signify something impacted there, then further excavated the region. You don't essentially see what would be an excavated spot regularly out in space. The bright spots are most times explained by "Ice/Relections", but then why not with hold the entire photo. It's probably not inverted.

posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 11:53 AM
a reply to: VoidHawk

There is nothing to this really, after all if I took this photo

And did this

And then added this

Voila! you have a conspiracy.

That's the giants causeway, a natural formation. I could replicate this on another site and people would swallow it up. Just because something doesn't appear natural it doesn't mean that it isn't natural.

edit on 12-6-2015 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 01:16 PM

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
OP --

If this image is the fake one:

And it needs to be inverted like this (below) to see the "real" image:

Then why is the part of Ceres on the dark side of the terminator line all white?

Well, DUH...

Because it's floating in the Milky Way...

posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 01:47 PM

originally posted by: gspat

Well, DUH...

Because it's floating in the Milky Way...

It looks like a cookie/biscuit being dunked in milk.

posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 07:38 PM

edit on 12/6/15 by Echtelion because: correction... I've seen the new images

posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 12:27 PM
This persistent, gnawing mindset that NASA, or any other space agencies, need to constantly lie or deceive us, for no apparent reasons other than the ones you conjure up in your mind, is not healthy. Go see a doctor, or just get a life and learn to appreciate all the hard work scientists are doing, even if you don't understand it.

(that was not directed at anyone in particular, I just had to get it off my chest)

new topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in