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.

 

Satellite image manipulating *example*

page: 1
27
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+12 more 
posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Hi ATS!

After my thread

Is this S-4?

i had the idea of making an example of altering satellite images.

On this example you can see how Groom Lake would look like without Area-51.


I completely painted out Area-51. Sure it is probably not perfect but i only worked about 10-15 mins on it. Todays tools are making that very easy.
I´m an digital artist, so i´m propably a bit faster than other people.

Its made from the satellite imagery of Google Earth. Check it out!

AREA 51 original

AREA 51 altered


For me it is really strange to look at the altered image, because i know that this image is wrong.


For those who know this image inside-out, imagine that you see this image the first time.


So, it is super simple to manipulate satellite images. Even images from mars or the moon could be easily manipulated this way.

This makes me also thinking that they sometimes do a very bad job.
Like here: 37°37'51.82"N 116°52'32.44"W




[edit on 6-1-2008 by allMIGHTY]


mod edit cap title

[edit on 1/6/2008 by kinglizard]




posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by allMIGHTY
 


Actually, this is very interesting. I seem to be able to locate partial "ghost images" of the original by looking closely. But a person almost has to know what they're looking for to find them.

It does give some weight to the arguments. A star and a flag for the effort, as I feel this should be of interest to those who find anomalies, and those that say there's nothing there. This is a very visual way of showing that pictures can lie.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Google Earth freely admits to altering the images available.......


At a recent meeting between ministry of science and technology officials and Google Earth representatives, it was decided that installations identified by government would be carefully camouflaged. This, it was felt, was better than an outright blackout. Apart from well-known sites like BARC, there are many less prominent ones, and blacking them out would only attract attention to their locations.

Images of these locations will not be of more than 25-50 metre resolution, more like the older generation pictures provided by Indian Remote Sensing satellites. Official sources said Google Earth would distort building plans by adding structures where none existed or masking certain aspects of a facility. This could be done without attracting attention to such establishments, which range from laboratories, mines, military sites, space and atomic centres and residences of high-profile VVIPs.


timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
www.asiamedia.ucla.edu...



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Of course! They should have the right to do so, in my opinion.
That a government is getting security holes because of Google Earth should
not happen.


It is already dangerous because terrorists can use GE very good for planning
an attack. But still, it is a very cool tool!

I only wanted to show that there are propably a lot of altered places in GE and how easy it is to manipulate an satellite image.

By the way, try to switch between the original and the altered image. It is really
funny to see the difference.


Thanks for the replies!



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Pretty decent job at removing all the man made objects and making it look 'natural'. This is why all the images from Nasa, regarding the Moon and Mars, showing blurred sections of images is NOT an attempt to cover up anything. If they are manipulating the images, they would attempt to make it look natural, like in your example, instead of making it obvious by just blurring a section of an image.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Pretty decent job at removing all the man made objects and making it look 'natural'. This is why all the images from Nasa, regarding the Moon and Mars, showing blurred sections of images is NOT an attempt to cover up anything.


I agree with you! In this example i removed a very large base but in the most cases they maybe try to hide smaller things or parts of something. That should absolutely be easy to overpaint it and make it look natural.
So that nobody can see that the image is manipulated. Blurred areas of course, causing more attention and make it obvious that there is something hidden.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Awesome work, and this is coming from a Graphic Designer and Digital Artist for a living. 10-15 mins is not bad.

I do stuff like that for a living, but not satellites but of Photographs.

So you use Photoshop, or another program?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   
A star and a flag!!


Now do people here know how easy it is to fudge the Mars/Moon images? There have been pages of arguments up here at ATS by many that it's impossible or impracticable for NASA to 'airbrush' images. The excessive pixelation / data loss one sees in certain portions of the images is probably nothing but the result of image tampering!

Doggone it! Just goes to show how much the powers-that-be must be hiding!

Good work!



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Not bad, for 10 or 15 minutes worth of work, using the latest digital imaging software.

But it only took about 10 or 15 seconds of scanning on my part to detect the areas that were duplicated or "cloned."

And yes, I'm a Photoshop adept, in fact, I've taught the program as well as used it extensively in a professional context.

But not to put too fine a point on the subject, the images released by NASA in the past did not have this digital "advantage."

They didn't have a digital "clone" tool to simply transfer like sections of the image onto areas they wished to obscure.

When they "airbrushed" an image in the '60's and '70's they actually, physically, airbrushed an image.

They also didn't anticipate the digital revolution in graphic imaging that would make such alterations easy to accomplish, and detect.

Nor did they realize the extent of the scrutiny to which their altered images would be subjected as a result of this eventual digital sophistication.

To retroactively compare the elegance of current digital imaging techniques to images physically altered in the past, using the artistry of the time, and claim this is to be proof that "there is no cover-up" is self serving and smacks of being deliberately obtuse to advance an agenda in support of "whatever NASA tells us, must be true."

In light of these facts, any new images released by a DoD administered governmental agency with a secret agenda to advance, should be examined with a very healthy dose of skepticism, and a very fine toothed digital comb.



[edit on 7-1-2008 by goosdawg]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Yeah, i´ve used photoshop and the clone stamp.

I did it in our office in the evening after work. So if i would take 2-3 hours
to paint that out i could avoid cloned or duplicated parts.

Of course, a professional looks completely different on that image and can
propably see how it is done, like you goosdawg.


Maybe i will make an second example of an mars or moon picture.
Or does somebody here have an idea for an image that i can try manipulate?


Thx so far!!!



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by allMIGHTY
 


I use Photoshop all the time....really, every day for one thing or another. My family loves me knowing it so I can clone and "airbrush" out their skin flaws


It is easy to manipulate photos and make them look legit to the untrained or "hopeful" eye. It is the trained eye that is hard to fool. LOL

[edit on 7-1-2008 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Cool topic! The altered photograph would do its job just fine of not drawing attention to itself. There are probably many areas covered by Google Maps that would be easy to detect as being digitally altered, but first they'd have to be noticed. Smart move by Google not to simply black out areas. It was very easy for me to notice the cloned sections on the altered photo of the OP, but that's only because the fact that the photo was altered was brought to my attention. For example, if I had been looking at a series of mountainous areas in the Nevada desert for habitable facilities, I would have passed right over that one without even thinking simply because I would have noticed the absence of habitable facilities. The details would have registered only if I had happened to pause on that photo for some reason. Like, perhaps, taking a phone call or having a cup of coffee and passively looking at the photo. Actively looking for something other than cloned details and the photo would have gotten pass me. Not too many people are going to be on the lookout for for such trickery unless they know that something is supposed to exist in a given location. Flag and star for the OP!



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by goosdawg

But not to put too fine a point on the subject, the images released by NASA in the past did not have this digital "advantage."

When they "airbrushed" an image in the '60's and '70's they actually, physically, airbrushed an image.

They also didn't anticipate the digital revolution in graphic imaging that would make such alterations easy to accomplish, and detect. Nor did they realize the extent of the scrutiny to which their altered images would be subjected as a result of this eventual digital sophistication.


Very well put and exactly right on the money.
And I've heard that from too many of the "old school" ufologists also. Nobody in NASA or the DOD expected the explosion of consumer and prosumer software to be available to everyone, or that there would be such an interest in attempting to find out what it was they were airbrushing out...

But I will say that the Original poster did a masterful job of copy/paste/cloning on the area51 shot..

Johnny



[edit on 7-1-2008 by JohnnyAnonymous]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   
If Google don't black areas out, then what am I seeing all over Nellis Air Force Range?

Google Maps



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Holy Shnikey! Let's see Copperfield do that!


You just made A51 go *poof*

That only took you 15 minutes? Sheesh and with the people and resources the US government and Nasa has at thier disposal, and the time they can spend on images before they release them to the public......

This makes me look at every Satellite image that we get now in a completely different light.

Not saying that I really trusted them to show us anything anyway, and the stuff that does get leaked out is probably intentianal disinfo/ red herring stuff to throw us off what they are really hiding.

Nice work, Star for you



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by allMIGHTY
 



what about working on something, that if we found on a different body in space, it may be hidden to protect, as something they deem a threat to our state of consciousness.

Some random ideas, pick one that you would have fun with:

Mt. Rushmore. The side of Stone Mountain in Georgia. The pyramids, any of them. Evidence of water - rivers, lakes, ice, clouds. Roads and cities, possibly in a valley. Mining operations.

Basically, things that are found here while also being claimed to be found and covered up elsewhere.

I think you did quite well already. If this area was new to me, I would not look hard enough to find some things I did (top runway outline) or think it to be an odd natural formation. Most people who take a quick glance wouldn't question it.

Thanks for the efforts and showing us. I am no where near at that level, but I was surprised at how easy it was to manipulate photos myself. I used Gimp for the first time and edited something out of a photo at 800%, and at 100%, you couldn't tell unless you knew it was altered, then it was a bit of a strain.

People who make their incomes out of this are definitely better than a first time user. I would not put it past them to be able to pull off nearly anything. What it all comes down to on the digital side is, it is only pixels. If you are good with colors and blending, study a lot of real digital images magnified; faking one wouldn't be hard at all.

Shoot, if you did that well in 15 minutes, you might be recruited for a special position with better pay than you currently make. Watch out for some fresh government mail



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
you get a star for this !
perfect example of what you can do with photoshop nowadays



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Now for a little conspiracy to spice this thread up.
In the original photo, does anybody else think that the "scorpion", which begins at the "head", the snow capped mountains, on the left side of the photo, body and tail curves and progresses northward, and ends at the "stinger", has been digitally inserted into that mountain range? It looks as if is was just placed there like a piece of jigsaw puzzle. It doesn't look as if it naturally belongs.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
A flag and a star for the OP!
Very nice work... I've spent a fair amount of time working with Photoshop so I'm amazed with the results you obtained in only ten or fifteen minutes' work. True, cloned areas can be picked out, but as others have very rightly said, few people would even notice them if they were simply "browsing" the terrain on GE. And also true, if you really went to work on this pic I'm sure that you'd take care of those details.


Just wondering... Does everyone assume that the "original" pic is genuinely clean and un(re)touched? I have my doubts...



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
How do we know it's not cloaked with it's new found technology, they probably are in the picture but invisible. Or someone decided to air brush it out, I have not seen area 51 yet on google, so will comment another time about that.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<<   2 >>

log in

join