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.

 

LA Times: Syrian Facility Images Photoshopped by US?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I came across this article and I have to say that the building looks really fake. The article says that only a few things look "enhanced" but to me the whole building looks fake. What do you guys think?




LA Times




posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
That pic looks quite obviously to be a fake. If it's not entirely fabricated, it's most certainly altered.

Does this really surprise anyone? After all, we are now in the middle of the most virtual reality oriented campaign imaginable. The vast majority of news reports are completely false and only exist to sway opinion in the intended direction.

This looks to be cooked up to pave the way to more destruction...



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   
What do they mean by enhance? Help us see the building more clearer?



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthWithin
 


Maybe the OP should actually investigate the picture BEFORE attempting to make it sound as if the US Government is making things up:


As several readers have pointed out, the first is a still from a rendered 3-d animation distributed by the DOD and was never claimed to be an unaltered photograph, so we can remove that one form the discussion immediately.


That answers your question in regards to the picture.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Good find. The pictures do look fake. Finally some media are shinning some light on the truth. I hope more stories like this break so Americans can start facing the issues.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by anti us gov]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ferretman2
 


Maybe if one also considers that our government has a very strong history of creating and using fake evidence to invade other countries, then perhaps one would continue to look at things like this with a suspicious eye.

Give me a break!

If the evidence was SO conclusive then WHY would the government need to make a 3d rendering?

[edit on 29-4-2008 by TruthWithin]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Here is a video in two parts, which tells the story of that reactor and why it was deemed to be an attempt to produce weapons grade plutonium. Parts of this video include computer generated imagery that is based on both satellite and ground-based photography. The pictures in question come from this video.

The video is a bit dry, but interesting nonetheless.






Screen capture



[edit on 2008/4/29 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Umm I may be wrong....wait, no I'm not.

The 3D rendering of an object from a SATELLITE IMAGE is easier to see if the picture is in fact...... rendered using 3D software. It should not be surprising at all to see our government taking advantage of common technology to create a clearer picture for us and themselves to see in order to analyze objects better.





(autodesk controls the universe, clearly.)



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
reply to post by TruthWithin
 


Maybe the OP should actually investigate the picture BEFORE attempting to make it sound as if the US Government is making things up:


As several readers have pointed out, the first is a still from a rendered 3-d animation distributed by the DOD and was never claimed to be an unaltered photograph, so we can remove that one form the discussion immediately.


That answers your question in regards to the picture.



It's funny how almost everyone completely ignored your post because they wanted to believe in a cover up. If the government really wanted "Photoshop" something I can assure you it wouldn't be able to tell. I have friends who work in the mapping industry under military contract, it's all highly technical. You wear very expensive goggles while editing the maps or outlining three dimensional objects...here is one of the companies that deals with complex mapping...it's so laughable that some think you'd actually be able to tell with the naked eye with all the complex technology they have...

www.earthdata.com...

Anyhow, I doubt the actual satellite photo is fake

[edit on 30-4-2008 by yellowcard]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cpt. Monty
...The 3D rendering of an object from a SATELLITE IMAGE is easier to see if the picture is in fact.......


So how could they create an accurate 3d image from a 2d image that doesn't have the information they need to create the detail.

Software is not magic it can only do what you tell it, and guessing the details isn't going to help them is it?

So again what's the point?

Also having said that satellite images are very sharp not blurry.

www.flickr.com...



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I think that if you watch the two videos I posted, I think you will be able to see that the 3D effect is computer-generated based on satellite and ground based photography.

Besides the CGI is purely for illustrative purposes only.

There are plenty of satellite imagery that supports the conclusion that the reactor was not intended to provide electricity, but to provide weapons-grade plutonium.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Well considering we have pictures of a North Korean nuclear facility that is almost identical to the one Syria was constructing I think we can assume what it would look like based on that.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There are plenty of satellite imagery that supports the conclusion that the reactor was not intended to provide electricity, but to provide weapons-grade plutonium.


I agree, I wasn't questioning that, and I was under the impression that they just had that one pic they used for the background. But if they had multiple pics from different angles then yes I can see how could be done, and in fact why.

I still don't think the US should invade though. The powers that be never tell us what they're really up to. If you've done any reading of history I don't know how you could not see that. But I guess rogue government only happens in them pinko foreign countries?

Do you know what Hitler wanted as part of his master plan? A state of continuous war. And guess what he tried to use? Terrorism.

Does that not sound familiar?



The phrase 'war on terrorism' is used to justify a wide variety of actions in many countries. In Israel it is used to justify bombing apartment buildings in Gaza. In Russia it has been used to justify oppressive measures in Chechnya. In Canada it has been used to justify oppressive search measures contrary to privacy laws. In the United States it specifically refers to the perpetual global interventionism.

Source


New York and Washington. Bali, Riyadh, Istanbul, Madrid. And now London.

When will it end? Where will it all lead?

The experts aren’t encouraged. One prominent terrorism researcher sees the prospect of “endless” war

Source

Wakey! Wakey!



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join