It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Photo Analysis Help Needed

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   
hello everyone, i found this pic while reading about space junk. it looks like an image of a triangle taken in space. now i don't know anything about this pic but i would really appreciate all the assistance and info that anyone can offer.



NY Times

is this a real pic? or CGI?




posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   


if you look in the center there is a split and there is also some sqaure pixelation in the upper right. probably edited in

actually the earth isnt even solid. this is many different pics of the earth squared together. look at it

[edit on 9-2-2007 by red eye agnostic]


Ex

posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   
I think it is edited also...........




posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   
thanks for the quick replies. i wonder what size that thing would have been if it was real.

just noticed this just now (that's the reason for the edit), there's pixelation along the horizon too, so is it edited into the image as well?


[edit on 9-2-2007 by toreishi]


Ex

posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I just read the article and it IS about space junk.
I also know there must be just tons up there now
and it IS from the New york Times........

But the pixilation is just not right, well to my feeble eyes anyway
I could be very wrong and it is a Steath Bomber
or a corner of a cardboardbox..I dunno!!



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   
My professional opinion is that it's a Victory Class Star Destroyer. Imperial troops should be boots on the ground within hours. I say we run like hell.



Sorry, I'm just tryin' to lighten my mood tonight.

I was just talking with a friend tonight about the amount of space junk there is, and there's alot. It doesnt look to be that far away to me, probably small and it's pretty nondescript. I dont think anything substancial would be used in the Times if it wasnt just mudane space debris.

If it isn't junk...then thats no moon.





posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
glad to know there's still some people in here with a sense of humor.

i'm thinking its space junk, could be a broken-off piece of shuttle shielding or solar panel or a piece of alien literature
.. anything at all that's neither a remotely controlled probe/satellite nor manned craft/space station is space junk, right guys? right?!



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by toreishi
glad to know there's still some people in here with a sense of humor.


Yeah, I dont always have a serious hat on. (But dont tell anyone)

Space junk...it aint bad enough we've polluted the planet, we gotta put it in space too. We're the equivalent of "Pigpen" from Peanuts if we have any galactic neighbors.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   
I see an area of blocky irregularity that looks like a time stamp or something has been removed from the upper right corner of the photo. The picture is comprised of the large mosaic blocks that I've seen in other NASA photos, and it's been compressed for the Web, which has splattered the photo with compression artifacts.

While the file data does bear several mentions of NASA as the source, I also see the word "Adobe" just once in the EXIF information... Which doesn't mean anything, actually, the jpeg could have been compressed in an Adobe application. Big deal.

This picture has a lot of artifacting, looks like they compressed the hell out of it, and doesn't appear to show anything other-worldly. Given that the photo doesn't really show anything spectacular, I don't see why we shouldn't just accept it as "space debris"...

— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 03:44 AM
link   
the second post is probably your best analysis, although inverting the colors isn't necessary to point out the things you've noticed, they are just as clear in the source photo.

as he pointed out, the picture is probably split (the split is very noticible in the top center). the left side doesn't have the "anomaly", and the right does. it appears to be in the foreground, possibly a piece of the craft where the photo originated from? the "thing" just wasn't visible in angle 1.

and of course if it is just "space debris", the reasoning above supports why it would appear to have such an odd shape.

[edit on 10-2-2007 by bizone]

[edit on 10-2-2007 by bizone]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Well Shxt, there you are jritzmann
A bunch of local under scrutiny (ATS Member vids/pics) could sure use your photo/vid analytical skills in determination Sir. If you have time or know..it's great to see yah around Sir.

Dallas



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bizone
if it is just "space debris", the reasoning above supports why it would appear to have such an odd shape.


Why is a triangular piece of junk an "odd shape"? If it was shaped like the state of Texas, or like Daffy Duck, now that would be an odd shape. The space junk explanation works for me on this one — it's not that anomalous a photo, doesn't warrant much manipulation nor analysis.

I mean, you have basically 2 kinds of photos from NASA... You have a tin can photo (something that everyone has seen before), and then you have a tin can with a python in it (the kind of photo that startles the hell out of you).

I'd say the photo in this case is just a tin can. Junk.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ex
I just read the article and it IS about space junk.
I also know there must be just tons up there now
and it IS from the New york Times........


Well, if it's in the NY Times, it MUST be true, right????



Ex

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Absolutely!! The New York Times IS the holy grail of media

........NOT!!!

This is an interesting pic..but then I am still a sucker
for any UFOS
I am also a sucker for men that hold hands.......

Maybe it's an ice wedge that marked the photo when the NASA
folks were having a party......
I really don't know what it is



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
It looks edited in. Notice the pixelation.

Also lol @ the star destroyer post, although thats not a Victory-Class Star Destroyer in the picture.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
My professional opinion is that it's a Victory Class Star Destroyer. Imperial troops should be boots on the ground within hours. I say we run like hell.



Sorry, I'm just tryin' to lighten my mood tonight.

I was just talking with a friend tonight about the amount of space junk there is, and there's alot. It doesnt look to be that far away to me, probably small and it's pretty nondescript. I dont think anything substancial would be used in the Times if it wasnt just mudane space debris.

If it isn't junk...then thats no moon.




The Imperials have entered the base...I repeat the Imperials have ent..(white noise).......(Han) Go ahead and take off, i'll get her out on the Falcon! Any Star Wars reference and I just have to chime in!

(in best whiny voice)
But I was gonna go to Taschi station and pick up some power converters!



[edit on 10-2-2007 by kleverone]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Definitely a Star Destroyer... and people who say the Pope looks like the Emperor are shouted down.

I say we all rebel...REBEL!!!!! Then we get a farmboy to accept his true destiny, witness his carers get torched, lose an old man, meet (and kiss) his sister, then fight his dad... all the while moving from 'Green Kid' to 'Commander Skywalker' to 'Master Skywalker'.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
It's a fake directly from NASA. From 1986

Picturecode:



Ducky H A N D O U T F R O M : N a s a I m a g e E x c h a n g e : h t t p : / / n i x . k s c . n a s a . g o v D a t e : 0 1 . 1 2 . 1 9 8 6 D e s c r i p t i o n : A T L A N T I C O C E A N / S P A C E D E B R I S S T S 6 1 C - 3 1 - 2 A T L A N T I C O C E A N / S P A C E D E B R I S C r e d i t : N A S A J o h n s o n S p a c e C e n t e r - E a r t h S c i e n c e s a n d I m a g e A n a l y s i s Adobe


[edit on 10-2-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
so NASA is faking the triangle in this pic? would they be faking other images/videos as well? why would they do that?



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by bizone
if it is just "space debris", the reasoning above supports why it would appear to have such an odd shape.


Why is a triangular piece of junk an "odd shape"? If it was shaped like the state of Texas, or like Daffy Duck, now that would be an odd shape. The space junk explanation works for me on this one — it's not that anomalous a photo, doesn't warrant much manipulation nor analysis.

I mean, you have basically 2 kinds of photos from NASA... You have a tin can photo (something that everyone has seen before), and then you have a tin can with a python in it (the kind of photo that startles the hell out of you).

I'd say the photo in this case is just a tin can. Junk.

— Doc Velocity


lol... "Odd Shape", meaning the entire left part of the object is completely cut off. Also a lot of people seem to associate a triangular shape flying/floating through the air with a flying machine. Again, the triangular look is only because the we are probably only seeing a portion of the entire object.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join