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.

 

Another Fake Syria Nuke Photo?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Another Fake Syria Nuke Photo?


www.rense.com

In November 2007 an aerial photo of a destroyed Syrian nuclear site was released, on which I performed a brief photo analysis. It is still not known to this day if this image is supposed to be an aerial photo or a satellite image.

Here is a quick review of the previous faked images.[1]

Vectors clearly show problems with shadow angles in impossible places in this 2007 photo on two opposite sides of raised structures. Compare shadows of orange arrow and yellow arrows...
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
This from Rense.com (i know, not the most credible source..)
However, what do you guys think about the image analysis of these photos?

Is the research credible on this particular story? Below is pasted the images for convenience..


Figure 2

Vectors clearly show problems with shadow angles in impossible places in this 2007 photo on two opposite sides of raised structures. Compare shadows of orange arrow and yellow arrows. This isn,t possible with sunlight as the only light source.



Figure 6

Graphics applied to some of the problem areas in Fig. 4.
Red and green vectors should all be parallel.

A number of anomalies exist in this photo which we shall explore. The following is an explanation of graphics shown in Fig. 6...



Figure 7

Falkirk, Scotland aerial photo shown at original size. Vectors show that numerous buildings and trees at various angles to the Sun produce the same shadow angles. [3] (Image of this city was selected for both shadow clarity and various building angles...)





www.rense.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
It's an interesting article, and I do believe that Syria has "hidden" the nukes that they MAY have...but consider your source. Rense...not a very reputable resource if you ask me.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Shugo
 

Yea I agree, hence the disclaimer in my post..However, if the photo is real and unretouched direct from the mil, then the research is factual, analyzing angles from shadows from buildings and features from the one light source, the sun.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Here are the images I've found on the Syrian Facility:

From BBC:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Before Bombing..


After Bombing..


Rebuilt..with a Blue Roof !!


Weird after the Israeli bombed the building, they rebuilt it - with a nice stealthy, camouflaged BLUE roof


Note these images are not the same ones as the Rense images, still need to find the source images that THEY used...anyone?

Here is the orignal analysis page: www.rense.com...

[edit on 26-4-2008 by battlestargalactica]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Yeah I have to agree I think Syria is working on a nuke program in fact Im even going to throw a twist in there. I think it was North Korea who told us they were helping Syria thats why no one wanted to talk about it. US & North Korea allies?



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I seriously doubt those buildings held nuclear armaments.

Your government will always feed you whatever trash they have to in order to continue or start their wars.

War makes money, and hands more power to the government.

They will fabricate photographs, edit news stories, and even make entirely fake news stories and feed them to the press. Is the press going to step in their way? Pffft, the government just did the press' job for them... not to mention the viewer ratings news outlets get when they get "information" about the enemy.


Yes, those buildings were bombed. But no, they likely didn't have nukes.

Just pick some arbitrary building that looks eerie... oh, and it's gotta be in the middle of the desert (nothing screams baddies like a building in the desert). Bomb the crap out of it... and then point to the pictures of the demolished structure claiming "There used to be WMD's in there... we need a NEW war."

(don't bother actually going there to check for debris, or get another CLOSE flyby to inspect it... no, that would give away the fact that there were never WMD's in the first place. Even a toxicology check, or a radiation scan would do the trick... but nope.)

Come on.

Same strategy, different day.
And still people fall for it.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 

Yeah you're right, N. Korea was suspected in helping the Syrians with this alleged nuke facility, this was I believe due to the design of the building and supports.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by battlestargalactica
reply to post by mybigunit
 

Yeah you're right, N. Korea was suspected in helping the Syrians with this alleged nuke facility, this was I believe due to the design of the building and supports.


No I know N Korea helped but Im saying that I think North Korea also told the US about the plant and they knew about it because they helped them with it. US and North Korea secret allies?



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
The photographs were not faked, they are indeed legit.
The shadow argument is bogus, look closely for yourself, everything is explainable. Remember how rugged that terrain is friendo.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ppskylight
 

The area 'around' the buildings are of course rugged, however the plot of land that the buildings are built on, and hence the shadows fall upon, is flat. It's not a good idea to build on slanty ground when not necessary.

I can see if the shadows fall upon a hillside or slope to explain the shadow angular differences, but thats not the case dude.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
If you were building nuclear weapons, wouldnt you build the structure UNDER GROUND? AKA Iran? USA?

For them to have unguarded factories in plain site like that is a little bit, reckless.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


You'd think, but there are some people who claim "I can't see nothing, so it's not there." Then there are the others, the minority who know better. Not sure what to think in this case, I certainly don't think the Syrian Government is as stupid as to put their facilities out in the open.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 10:47 PM
link   
In general, nuke facilities that are built to support nuclear capability are not as carefully hidden, especially in less-rich countries. It is VERY expensive, orders of magnitude more, to build underground.

These facilities are not too expensive, almost expendable. What you would want to build underground are the nuke weapon storage facilities, after using your support buildings to refine and build, the end result would want to be protected.

But thats a side issue, this case, the shadows do seem mis-aligned by a substantial amount (15-30deg roughly IMO)...so what gives?



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by battlestargalactica
 


It's not a side issue at all, you're talking about fake nuclear facility photos.
You claim that these plants would cost too much to put underground, but really in true, if they're expendible, so is the technology in it, that is not true. Any nuclear facility would be under groun, mainly because technology within those facilities could be destroyed, weapons could be destroyed before output.

So really, the argument of above ground nuclear arms facilities is moot.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Shugo
 

It's not clear what you are trying to say..


Ideally yes nuke support buildings would be underground, but as stated above, poorer nations don't have this luxury.

If you are trying to say that since the Syrian bldgs are not underground, that they are not nuke support buildings, you would be wrong--thats false assumption.

Just do some quick research on the topic to see that many examples of nuke facilities are above surface.

[edit on 26-4-2008 by battlestargalactica]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by battlestargalactica
 


If something happens to a nuclear facility, that's a big "uh oh" for the country that the facility is in, and the one that it belongs to. It's not a matter of "oh boo hoo, we lost some cool remote controls and a microwave", it's a "holy crap! We just lost billions of dollars in technology, and now our rivers are purple!"

For the record, Syria is not poor, by any means. So regardless that argument doesn't sit.

[Edit]
Speaking to SS to refine this, I do stand corrected on the facilities of nuclear arms. However, the argument that these are in fact nuclear facilities...no. There's no real evidence pointing that they are...there's no evidence to say they're not. So we're really back to Square 1.

[edit on 26.4.2008 by Shugo]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Shugo
 

Are you kidding, me? You mean you are stating that all nuclear facilities are always underground? Do you know what kind of buildings are involved when its said "nuclear support buildings?" I don't think you do..

Support facilities include nuclear fuel conversion plants, uranium enrichment facilities and centrifuges among myriad other large complex type plots of land. To put these underground, as you attest, would be really nice, except for the HUGE HUGE HUGE cost involved.

Do you know how large these facilities need to be and how many you need for an even small scale nuclear weapons program? Google is your friend.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by battlestargalactica
 


You didn't read my later statement did you? I said I stood corrected.
But you seem to be basing your assessment of this situation off of an unreliable source, which is just showing some pictures. Yeah, guy, they're really just pictures. I don't see the "hey I'm a nuke" sign anywhere.


Now read the entire post before you judge me. I don't need psychoanalyzing.

I didn't say they aren't. But I don't think your source is credible, and I don't think the research put forth is valid with any credability. Proove me wrong, I'd love it if we did find nuclear facilities in Syria in honesty.

[edit on 27.4.2008 by Shugo]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Having done a lot of roadway exhibits and design work using arial photograph TIFF images as background basemaps, I can tell you that shadows in urban areas really are worthless without either an accompanying series of panoramic ground photos or a topography digital terrain model that's been sampled at a close enough interval to pick up elevations on man-made structures like fences, retaining walls, etc. Without those it's virtually impossible to make any positive statements about what is a depressed shadow and what is an at elevation shadow cast by an object with vertical height.

Personally, I think this is a red herring. Syria has nukes, but they've rebuilt this building as a ruse in hopes of someone taking it out and, after showing it was just an empty warehouse, building a little "poor pitifull us" sympathy in some of the more bleeding heart UN countries. It's the old bait & switch where they're trying to bait us into striking a worthless target, even going so far as making it a bright color to almost dare us to hit it.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join