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.

 

Moon Photo's with sections smudged or blanked out!!!!! weird

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:
Dae

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by badw0lf
So they don't put any effort into covering things up believably, because we - as a majority - don't know the truth?

Huh?


Think about it this way, most wont question the blurry bits because most dont question and trust these type of organisations ie NASA, too much.

One question, does NASA have an explanation for these smudged bits? Is there a paragraph explaining why we see discrepancies anywhere? Are we supposed to look at these images and somehow divine why there are blatant bits smudged out?

Ok lets assume NASA smudges these things out, why are they done so poorly? Because if it looks like there is photo manipulation as opposed to a blatant smudge then it will look very suspicious. As opposed to now, where 'bad pixels' and any other type of reasons one can give for the missing data.

So basically thats it, the blatant smudging can be 'easily' explained by bad pixels/missing data whereas detailed image manipulation can not be so easily explained (if found out).

Oh and another reason, its much cheaper and easier to control if you need only basic smudging skills as opposed to hiring people with excellent image manipulation skills.

There are 3 excellent youtube vids in this thread of people disclosing their stories of NASA airbrushing, you should have a looksee.




posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I have said it before and will say it again.

Those blurred areas appeared on the previous version of the image browser used, and to me, as a programmer, it looks like the images have that look because they were created "on the fly" using the coordinates and if there is a missing image from the ones that are needed to create the whole area then the software would use the last information it had, making a repetition of those values until it found a image with data.

That is why I never found any of those blurred areas on the new version of the image browser, the one that Turbohale posted here. I haven't looked those coordinates on this new version of the browser this time, so I can not say for sure that they aren't there, but all the previous times that I checked, those areas do not have any information, they appear as black areas.

And those areas do not have any photo available on the online version of the CD sets.

All this makes me think that the blurred areas are nothing more than a software artifact from the previous version of the image browser, nothing more.


Dae

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by Chorlton
There are probably thousands of telescopes trained on the moon at any given time.

On the dark side?


Thats a good question but also incorrect. The moon has no darkside (damn you Pink Floyd!) only the farside. When veiwing the moon from Earth we can only ever see one side but the whole moon does have its own night and day.

This explains it better.
source

Have you ever heard the term the 'far-side' of the Moon? Because of the effect on the Moon of tidal forces due to the Earth, the same side of the moon always faces the Earth. In other words, it takes the Moon the same amount of time to rotate around once as it does for the Moon to go around the Earth once. Therefore, Earth-bound observers can never see the 'far-side' of the Moon. Tidal forces cause many of the moons of our solar system to have this type of orbit.


So!

Chorlton: On the farside?

To which NuclearPaul will have no answer!



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat
Here's another video about them talking about airbrushing images:

www.youtube.com...


Debunkers, get working on this one. They are all lying right?

I really would like to know why NASA covers this up. There must be a reason, and thats what we should focus on. We already know there is a base there, but we are stuck trying to convince the people who only see rocks. Thats futile.


[edit on 18-9-2007 by Copernicus]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   
First Post...

1. These images were never meant to go public at the time these images were taken and "Air Brushed (Nasa Term)."

2. The editing/cover-up was never designed to be viewed by the general public at this resolution. The airbrushed areas were virtually undetectable at the level of size and resolution released to the public.

3. Nasa employee testimony states that Nasa photos are routinely "Air Brushed" before released to the public.

4. The release of these images could be part of a "Leak Embargo."

5. These photos should not be a shock to anybody. There is ample evidence out there to support the proof of the existence of ancient ruins on the moon and mars.

Feels good to break my proverbial ATS "cherry." Thanks ATS for what you do!



[edit on 18-9-2007 by hightowerx]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I just wonder!
If all the images of the moon,
taken from all the different sources,
ie different missions were assembled,
then in theory there should be a way to re-visit some of these blurred co-ordinates and assemble an (un-airbrushed/depixilated) version of the area and amend their library!


That is unless you have the samething to hide in each of the suspect (airbrushed) co-ordinates!!!



[edit on 18-9-2007 by Havalon]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Yeah, I mean not to rain on anybodies conspiracy parade here (I know how fun they can be) but listen to common sense and reason here for a moment.

Why would they cover something up, in the middle of a wasteland, with blurred pixels...that would COMPEL people to think they were hiding something, thus defeating the purpose of the grand cover-up. More than likley, if there is stuff in those pictures we should not see, or know about, they are covered up cut and paste style very well, as not to draw attention to themselves.

It's like pulling a green tarp over yourself in a wheat field trying to hide from the man, lol.

Some people are too eager to believe, and use things they don't understand to their advantage.


Well, my only response is that NASA must not have thought people would look that closely at the pictures of the lunar surface. You said it yourself, "in the middle of a wasetland." why would NASA think people would look that close at the middle of a wasteland? And yeah, I am saying that NASA put that green tarp over themselves. they did a terrible job covering this stuff up. and besides, didnt this info first start from "the disclosure project"? if you havnt seen it, you should look it up on youtube. One of the guys talks about being at LAFB (Langley AirForce Base) and being expsed to these pictures. Its funny, because i live in yorktown VA, not but 15min up the road from LAFB, and im sure you can look it up on google earth, but whats right next door to them? NASA. Its literaly right next to the base.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Are you aware that NASA has a photo section that pores over images and airbrushes anomalies that are out of sync and beyond comfort levels of the Military Intelligence, CIA, NSA etc before they are released for the consumption of the general public?

Have a peek at this thread Proof Of NASA Editing Images! What Do They Want To Hide? where this 'tampering' has been discussed...

Cheers!



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Here are two great videos that support this topic...

Moon:

video.google.com...

Mars:

video.google.com...

Also, forgot to mention that I just returned from the 2007 X-Conference in DC where there was mention of these structures from Greer, Haas and Saunders.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by hightowerx]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Was everybody convinced? ;]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
That is why I never found any of those blurred areas on the new version of the image browser, the one that Turbohale posted here. I haven't looked those coordinates on this new version of the browser this time, so I can not say for sure that they aren't there, but all the previous times that I checked, those areas do not have any information, they appear as black areas.


I looked at the same coordinates on the new browser mentioned in your post and there is [color=NAVY]NO anomaly. There is no sign of any alteration to the photo's. So I guess these images being discussed here is just a computer software thing.

Oh well.....

[edit on 18-9-2007 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 


erm or the "new" version of the software is erm how would I say that ah .. "tweaked"
? Now bear with me , I might be wrong so if somebody could explain one thing to me , why make a "new" version of the software if the old one performs quiet well ?

If this was answered somewhere by NASA please provide me the link (no sarcasm intended) so I might read up on that .

If you cant well then my theory of nasa covering it up with a "brand new tweaked for their purpose software" is as much credible as your "there is nothing brushed and all of you have dellusions of structures on mars" .



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
*putting on debunker's cap*

Those so-called "smudges" are digital seams when the orbitter made it's overlapping runs of the object. In digital lab, when you compiled these images, there are areas that requires...ehem...smudging, to ensure image continuity.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thill
why make a "new" version of the software if the old one performs quiet well ?
It does not, it makes blurry areas.


Both versions of the software are supposed to use the same images that are available on the CD sets (at least those that I saw on both sites) that can be seen online here.

Did anyone cared to look at those online CD sets images?



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thill
erm or the "new" version of the software is erm how would I say that ah .. "tweaked"
? Now bear with me , I might be wrong so if somebody could explain one thing to me , why make a "new" version of the software if the old one performs quiet well ?


Well, the old version did not perform well. The new version is much, much better. Once you enter your coordinates and zoom in, you don't have to click the picture or select arrows to move from photo to photo. In the new version you can just grab the picture and move it. The new version is very smooth and seamless.

I am by no means a photo expert, but I could not see any indications of a 'doctored' photo. DANG! Believe me, I wish I could see something odd.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
hmm as those answers are credible lets just say I'll go and climb back on the fence (much better view from here anyway
) , but I'll keep a close eye on the moon structures threads and if they find even 1 fuzzy looking area that seems shopped "I'll be back!..muahahahahah" erm...umm.. ok thats me climbing the fence then



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thill
hmm as those answers are credible lets just say I'll go and climb back on the fence (much better view from here anyway
)


You might have a better view sitting on the fence but you are more likely to get hurt. The tip of a fence up your rear end cannot feel good.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
In this day and age, any censorship on the government's part would never be noticed. Frankly, if the government didn't want you to see something, not only would you not see it, but you wouldn't know you're not seeing it either.

COME ON PEOPLE would they SERIOUSLY blur out something you weren't meant to see? We have PHOTOSHOP now... and even before tools like that, we still had the ability to fake images and seamlessly crop things.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree that accusing NASA of conspiracy is well beyond grasping.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Hey everyone, I have a moon imaging software. I will try to find the coordinates and see if theres anything by tomorrow or the 19th. I have school though. The whole thing seems too obvious.

Help me find the coordinates please.

I got live images. At least i think it's live

Yep it's live, theres refreshing rates and frame rates per second =). I can only look at one side of the moon.

By the way, what are
ARYABHATA
CAUCHY OMEGA
CAUCHY TAU
CENSORINUS
MENZEL
SINAS A
WALLACH
ZAHRINGER
COPERNICUS
COPERNICUS H
FAUTH
FAUTH A
MARE INSULARUM
REINHOLD
REINHOLD B
STADIUS

neighboring craters i suspect?

[edit on 18-9-2007 by die_another_day]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Check and see if the color has changed.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join