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.


To set things straight about airbrushing

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Cruizer
The reality is that there is no image you and I are going to see on the internet that is not suspicious of being bogus.

Talk about vapid paranoia...

We see some image posted by some screen named individual who we do not know, have never met and have no way of confirming the reliability of a stated source.

If the person provides a link one should address why you think there is a problem with the source and from personal experience i can tell you do not bother with such matters.

Even when someone states "oh, they're from NASA." Well NASA didn't post them on their official web site so that means someone else obtained them and posted on a site like ABS.

Why automatically assume this before checking the picture against official records?

If anyone knows what chain of evidence is in law enforcement or even archeology you know that all items recovered from a crime scene or dig site are carefully catalogued, kept under lock and key and presented as evidence in court or to substantiate a hypothisis in archeology.

Nonsense; we know there is so much evidence and facts that NEVER make it into consideration or school text books.

If some guy in a truck pulls up an hands you an item it is not allowed in any legal sense because of chain of evidence- there is no proof of its source, validity or genuine nature.

Just not true.

We ask why the heck nerds make viruses to screw up computers all over the world.

Since when?

We ask why people manufacture bogus images to distribute in a way impossible before the internet.

That's mostly what our governments and news agencies do, not individuals trying to stage elaborate lies.

The answer to both is the same- some perverted claim to fame. What were they doing before the internet existed?

Which is understandable to at least some degree but how does this invalidate all the good investigative work being done on sites like these?

If they were doctoring tangible negatives they were caught by Kodak, Polaroid and other laboratories when they foisted them off as "real." No, you look at some 96 DPI pic and see what you are told someone else sees and we get all excited.

You clearly only get excited when repeating what you believe while disregarding and ignoring anything suggesting of alternatives...

Even when someone says, "why these images are from Joe Doaks, respected researcher." Some think that actually means something and others say, "he's been causht totally wrapped up in the manufacture of fake stuff." So who do you believe?

I believe that every image from every source should be considered and if one has no credible reason to suspect a specific image , and can offer no proof beside your own idle vapid speculation based on your own bias, you have no business dismissing it because you have chosen not to believe what it suggests or proves.

The images on the web are tainted simply by association with so many fakes.

Only if one employs the warped kind of logic that prolonged exposure to government propaganda results in.

I can prove that the Packard in my avatar is mine. Posting what could be a doctored ownership certificate on the web ain't gonna do it. A picture of me next to the car might convince some, if you knew what I even looked like. The only way to prove it is for you to come by the house and see for yourself. Of course you're not invited.

While interesting some who really believe you can not own or afford a car might after visiting you and seeing the car still just assume that you stole it or borrowed it from someone to fool them. The sad reality is that those with preconceived notions will always find a way ( however illogical ,unlikely or plain weird) to believe what they want instead of what the evidence indicates.

So using proper logic as to what is possibly real or fake is up to each individual. You know the perameters that are likely to prove or substantiate legitimacy. If you choose to ignore them it's your own fault if you are fooled.

Individual reality may be determined within boundaries ( a train will kill you no matter what you believe) but it hardly changes what some would call objective reality. People may decide what is true for them but obviously this does not really prove much as people do things subjectively; if one wants to be taken seriously in discussion boards be able to fight and defend each and every statement you make with large volumes of interconnected factual material. If one can not defend one's views in this way it's best not to try spread them as facts.

You can be openminded yet reserved with some skepticism. Being skeptical isn't being a debunker, bent on dismissing and disproving everything either.

Skepticism ( especially the way most people employ it to believe what they like) is very much overrated and normally employed by those with a vested interest in not changing their minds. Much rather be open minded and well and truly confused than certain and completely wrong.


posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Apass
And what this has got to do with circular reasoning? (about "it's done by hand" see below)

Your argument is based on the premise that they are not lying because they were caught. How can you suggest that what they say must be true because we would not catch them in a lie" Is your argument that we ( presumably people like me?) are too stupid to discover them lying? I already said...
If NASA is spending alot of money to cover up things...don't you think that they have more complex image processing softwares than Paint???

Well according to evidence based on observation apparently they do not? Why are we supposed to assume that a cover up must be perfect and done with the best technology at the time by the smartest individuals who knew very well how to do their jobs? I am surprised that you assign these great powers to mere humans who just happen to be working against progress and apparently not always willingly so.

Did I say they are superhumans? And if there is no perfect conspiracy then why the need for one?

You allured to the fact that it's not a conspiracy because we caught them at it. In your mind a conspiracy is apparently something too elaborate to be exposed by anyone you run into on the Internet... There are no perfect conspiracy as they always involve humans and humans are fallible even when they have a huge stake in taking part in whatever given conspiracy.

How would NASA look like when "the conspiracy" is finally revealed (by independent space agencies)?

Your arguments here is basically that all people in jail are innocent because how on earth would any criminal be stupid enough to get caught at a crime? Why do you assume that the same people will still be working for NASA or that they planned to maintain the conspiracy forever? Why assume that it was not a directive they received from higher up that they had to deal with whatever the cost to their future credibility?

Isn't it plausible that an expensive software used for stiching and "detection of anomalies" would highlight the anomalous areas for further (hand) processing?

I really have no idea how they are doing it but it would make sense that there is a great deal of automation as keeping this thing quite after hiring a few dozen or hundred people, to do it by hand, would make harder to keep under wraps if that was in fact the intent of everyone in the organization. I am NOT suggesting that i know all the In's and outs but simply that we can now observe with some regularity extensive image tampering for some reason or another; for all i know they could simply by tampering with large fields of rocks for their own pleasure. They could for all i know be tampering with the images to create the illusion that there are buildings, structures, life and running water on Mars for some purpose i do not yet comprehend. Once again i am not suggesting that i have many or any answers but that i have plenty of well supported questions based on the observations i and many others have made.

What if not all the detection are anomalies? Then a human opertor will have to select from the alarms only those that are if you have a human operator... is it hard to go further and assume that the human operator also handles the anomalies?

If the program does not warn the operator a area might not be selected for correction but even if warned the human involved might still fail to properly cover it up for a variety of reason; i am certainly considering the possibility that they want these anomalies to be found in the short or long run...

Did that happen? I repeat: I used a crater form the same frame because it was easier for me to do that.

It would also be easier for them to do that as that would always later be easier to explain away as some kind of 'software rendering/stitching problem' they failed to see in the 'peer review' process...

Had I copied a crater from another frame, merka wouldn't have spoted it! But if NASA is airbrushing the photos, of course they would not do that (and the fact that it was never discovered can support this point (assuming that NASA is airbrushing things))

It would be extremely hard to discover such unless images were taken of the same general area with only one or a few of the lot being altered. We do have examples of that so it can not be argued that this has not been observed.

Then why bother airbrushing them?

Because it's what they were ordered to do? I am sure you have worked for someone and been told to do something against your will? Did you do a awesome job of it or did you just slap something together haphazardly to avoid punishment? I am not suggesting that i understand the processes involved in this scam but only that i can see things that does not make sense once one investigates the issues in question.

Well....I'm not calling the one who raises questions crazy or deluded. I kindly ask him to provide evidence for his claims.

That is what you do but how is it fair if you never give it due considering by simple parroting the 'other possibilities' that is rarely defined or proven to be in fact possible on Mars? Why disagree based on the premise that whoever objects may very well be wrong, somehow? Do you not think that i understand the inherent danger of questioning what so many believe and that i did not consider the odds for and against based on various strains of evidence? All you basically do is consider each anomaly separately and then find another way ( however unlikely or unsupported; which does not mean it's not true obviously) of dismissing it never taking the global picture and considering each of these observations as part of a new data set towards proving something very different. If you atomize the big picture you might very well end up parts that does not provide much proof of anything but what would be the logic behind such action?

If all he can provide are some pictures with communication glitches or some blured (read low res) areas , then sorry, I'm not going to believe him.

And luckily we live in countries where people have the right to believe whatever they want so i will not impose what i believe to reality on you. That being said where is the evidence that communication glitches or low res areas are possible using the science equipment in action here? Where is the evidence that data can not be resent from the satellite when there were communication problems? Where is the evidence that blurred areas are 'low res and how does a camera have low res zones that keeps shifting from one picture to the next? While what you say may enter your mind as possible solution why did it and what evidence do you have that suggested such explanations to you? One should always consider the reality that bias is subconscious and that it will create obstacles that evaporates on closer conscious inspection.

Yes...but in 50 years (lets hope) when space will be affordable, how would NASA look like?

Well the current workers there will likely all be dead so what problem would that be for them? Pinochet actually ordered people killed but old age seemed to have served as good defense for that.... How did the people involved in the S/L scam look? Do you even know the names of the main players in possibly the largest financial scam in human history? Who do you remember from Iran-Contra? Did you remember who ordered the completely illegal bombing of Laos which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and how many bomber commanders knowingly falsified their logs on orders?

I could go on for a few dozen pages but i do not think you will accept the reality that people in power lie full well knowing that their criminal activity ( even the murder of millions) will eventually , and probably in the lifetimes, be exposed. With so much power and friends in right places it does not really matter who knows as they simply do not have the power to take revenge or prosecute you for your crimes. You argument is entirely based on ignorance of history and the workings of those who really , for the most part anyways, control the world.

And who will fabricate the information? If there is no hint about conspiracy...why would someone think of that and then "fabricate" evidence for that?

Because deep down ( not very deep imo) people realise that they are being lied to on at least a few levels when it comes to what their governments tells them and knowing that they in their average ignorant state ( of the workings of power and reality) try to expose such by use of their normally not so ample means.... This is why we have consumer societies were distractions are waiting for you at every corner no matter your intellectual prowess they will provide ample material or distraction from what they consider harmful to their larger plans.

Do you realise that the ATS forum in it's entirety might one day just vanish into thin air due to some kind of database failure with backups just not 'in order' so that they could be used to reconstruct? How many millions of hours of work and thought went into this *thing* that is not at all tangible? I do not think you really understand the workings or trappings of power and how they have undermined the contributions ( to humanity) of the intellectual elite of this planet. You are educated ( university , schooling etc) to know only what they want you to know and they must watch with glee to see how you and so many of your fellow converts spread and defend the received gospel you derive your self worth, dignity and standing from. The few can control the many if so many of the many willing subjugate themselves to dogma and it's defense understanding only enough to realise what benefits it holds to themselves.


posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 01:03 PM

Why assume NASA does this?

Under the current paradigm people must work for a living and most would rather do it in a field they love whatever the things they must put up with. You do realise that NASA's directors have been ex military men for some decades now? "National security' is something that goes a long way towards ensuring people do what their told when you have convinced them that it is not patriotic to question orders when the nations 'future' is at stake.


new topics
<< 1   >>

log in