It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Obviously NASA doesn't always lie,
originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
Uh-huh. And what have they lied about?
One of the NASA employees was 30 minutes late back from his lunch .. he said he was involved in a car accident ... but he was seen messin around with one of the other employees in the car park .. and his car was fine ..
and teh list goes on ..
one of their other employees stole a pen from work .. that says nasa on it ...
and we are supposed to trust these liars ??
originally posted by: ShadowLink
You do know that that image is composed of many images and is also most likely touched up to provide even illumination across the entire surface, right?
originally posted by: Shamrock6
I'm always perplexed when somebody says "I messed around with the picture and decided it's fake." Well yea, you messed around with the picture because you thought it was fake to begin with so why bother saying it? You messed with the image and then used your own "messing" to support your idea.
1) who knows "why now?" But what does that have to do with whether it's fake or not?
2) I'm confident that literal rocket scientists can put a satellite at a specific point in space at a specific time on a specific date. It's sort of their thing.
3) doesn't look fake to me, but then I didn't manipulate anything.
4) the earth still isn't flat.
5) ISS isn't at the bottom of a pool.
originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
Cool pic, but how come there is never any stars in these pics? Do they block them out on purpose? I just don't understand how no stars can be visible at a million miles away, we should be seeing tons of them in this pic but not one. I smell something fishy.
originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker
The images are exposed for too short of a time to capture star light.
Starlight is so faint, that you have to expose frames for many seconds to capture their light. If you did that while pointed at the sunlit side of Earth, the reflected sunlit would over expose the images badly.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: iDope
Yea I'm aware of that. What I'm not understanding is when a person makes changes to an image and then points to those changes as proof.
Pointing out evidence of Photoshop is not the same thing as taking an image, making your own alterations to that image, then pointing to YOUR OWN alterations as proof of something.
originally posted by: ThreeDeuce
re - Elektra-L
Ummm, I covered these in another thread, but yes I think they are fake also. Just look at the shadow to the left of the Earth. It's obvious without editing. Shadow in space?
originally posted by: Segenam
is it definitely tho ? .. you say that with certainty ..
but the BBC wording here strongly suggests one pic .. mainly the use of the wording 'full snapshot' anyway .. i know thats not exactly evidence either way
The image was generated by combining three separate images to create a photographic-quality image. The camera takes a series of 10 images using different narrowband filters -- from ultraviolet to near infrared -- to produce a variety of science products. The red, green and blue channel images are used in these color images.
This Earth image shows the effects of sunlight scattered by air molecules, giving the image a characteristic bluish tint. The EPIC team is working to remove this atmospheric effect from subsequent images.