It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


NASA Anomalies in Photos- A Cover Up?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:34 PM
I knew this question would manifest. I must admit I completely agree with you. If I disclose my source I could be or get someone in big trouble. I feel I can safely say this much however...
The person I got these photos from does in fact work for NASA or did work for them at one time they may be a direct employee or they could have been a subcontractor. So it's not entirely inaccurate to say it's a NASA cover up. But in all fairness your correct I could not swear to it. What I will swear to is that I myself nor anyone to my knowledge (other than the source or the sources boss)has tampered with these photos in any way what so ever.
I thought there was a type of "digital signature" on each photo that could be read either with photoshop or similar programs. While I can use photoshop fairly well I get a little bit lost on the aspect of identifying whether a photo has been tampered with or how many times. I myself can only tell by visual examination if a image has in fact been touched up in any way. I wish there was a way to remove the pixels that seem to be covering that upper middle section in image 006. Or is there a way to see if these images contain layers?
Thanks !

[edit on 7-6-2008 by firegoggles]

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:47 PM
This anomaly from #10 looks like a 'rod'.

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by shramana

Yes at first glance I thought the same thing. I'm just not convinced either way yet.
It has been suggested camera filament, although in the world of "digital" cameras I'm not so sure how valid that theory is, but still haven't discounted that as a possibilities. In image 0010 it looks like any aircraft you would see in the sky if you ask me. I'm just being honest but then again it kinda looks like a... I hate to say it because I never even really went for this kinda thing but .. maybe a "wedding cake" looking ship(man I hated to say that lol). Looks like a jet more of course that's not weird at all "jet flying around in space"

If you think any of these are weird pfff wait to you see this next one. It's the mother of all weirdness.

Thanks all

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:10 PM
Another very strange NASA pic

Ok straight to it.
Look nearly in the center of the picture inside the sky glow maybe a little bit to the left.

image 8

WUT?????????????????? LOL! I await your comments

I'm not even going to say the "whacky" conclusions I've been coming up with in my mind in reference to this pic! Or is NASA just getting a sence of humor and enjoying getting a "rise" out of us here on ATS and like-minded sites?

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:22 PM
IMO image 6 is a fake, im not sure about the others, has anyone heard of raytracing? here is an example

that whole kitchen is computer generated, NONE of it is real.

thats what i think is been used here, the sky and horizon are all wrong in image 6.

link to hi-res ratraced image (big)

too real to be real

why nasa would ray-trace images and not just give us photos I dont know, Ive had my suspicions about alot of photos been faked.....

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:28 PM
reply to post by beefeater

I was just saying some of it looks "too good to be true". I say we should chalk that up as one valid point that should be remembered when examining the pics as a group they are just "too good".

Which brings us to the next question.

Why would you touch up ray traced or fake photos?

Wouldn't you just make em right to begin with instead of including things that had to be removed or painted over later on?

[edit on 7-6-2008 by firegoggles]

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:49 PM
The only reason i can think of to touch them up is that the clever people making the ray-traced images know what they are doing is deceiving the public so they don't do the job 100%. Then someone who checks the pictures before publication modifies them.

Everyone can use photoshop, ray-tracing is like coding and requires a brain

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:11 PM
reply to post by beefeater

So your suggesting that these alleged "ray tracers" more or less are purposely dropping us a clues?
One would think that the "artists" designing these photos as it were would be endangering not only their jobs, but possibly their lives if something indeed is being "covered up".

I don't know man its all pretty hard to swallow, but still it's a viable theory never the less, I certainly can't rule it out and the closer I look, the more I wonder. Seeing flipp'n "casper" in image 0010 really lends credibility to your "ray trace" theory. Is there any way to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that a photo has been fabricated using this "ray tracing" technique?
Thanks for you insight.

Thanks all.

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:19 PM
Oh ya and a question I meant to ask:

Where are the stars in these pictures?

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:23 PM
I'm not quite sure but I could have sworn I caught a glimps of Mothra in one. Can anyone confirm.

For cryin out loud, let it go people. It's not even worth wasting time over at this point. Their computer generated blurs are way to advanced for your Photoshop crap. Man, give it up. Seriously!

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:39 PM
reply to post by BlindWatcher1

So is that your official stance on the photos?

Computer generated?

All of it or just some of it?

Can you comment as to why they would touch up an already fabricated image(other than the theory of drop'n us clues already put forth that is)?

Thanks all.

P.S. Who are what is "Mothra"? Is that the same as the "mothman"? I think I see him too, in image 008

[edit on 7-6-2008 by firegoggles]

[edit on 7-6-2008 by firegoggles]

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:44 PM
The only thing I see of note is they over-sharpened the first image in post processing which explains the banding you see in the levels of the atmosphere. Common error, but not an anomaly.

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by beefeater

The images you posted are clearly CGI to my eye. The Image you are calling CGI is not that I can see. It just looks like they abused a sharpening algorithm to me. with a dark color against such a bright color that would be hard to avoid. It looks like it may have been masked during post and they did not go back and compensate.

What you say is possible, however CG is easy to spot due to the images being too clean. Clutter and complexity are the key to realistic appearance.

I use Lightwave 9.5, Silo, ZBrush 3.1, Carrara 6 Pro, Vue 6 Infinite, Photoshop CS3 Extended and many others by the way. I'm also at the advanced level in Photography. I don't do animation but as far as stills go, I'm pretty hard to fool.

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 10:01 PM
I don't really see anything out of the ordinary or edited in any of the pictures. Image 006 looks like the colors might have messed up, maybe after converting to a different color mode; depending on what you use it can remove some of the data and make the picture lose some color which gives it that comic book effect. It might also be because of sharpening that area, as the person above me said. A lot of different ways you can get that sort of look in an image, usually by over-filtering. Image 005 shows that same area in 006 and it doesn't seem to have anything worth covering up, and doesn't have the comic book effect, it looks like there might be dust on the lens. The white objects in the background show up in Images 009 and 10, but since they are taken from different perspectives and they appear to be in the same area and not moving, I'd say it's debris, or a satellite. The Earth's horizon in all the pictures except 006 look about the same to me, some look a bit more blurry and messed up from compression but it doesn't look like it was edited.

Out of all of them Image 8 looks most interesting, don't know what that is in the glow of the Earth's atmosphere, could just be something that came up when compressing, or a lens reflection.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by davion]

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 10:17 PM
reply to post by firegoggles

Geez, are you that misinformed BaBa. You really should try and take a vacation. Obviously you have no concept of how to formulate and integrate a sentence into your so called brain.

That's OK, just keep looking at the photos, keep looking at the photos, keep looking at the photos.

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 10:25 PM
What is going on with image # 8? I don't see anything out of the ordinary. All I notice from the side ways presentation of the astronaut is how the astronaut appears to be standing upright with slightly bended knees from his well placed feet on something FLAT.

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 10:28 PM
I don't see anything other than typical digital camera compression artifacts, and what may be internal reflections of the lens.

Remember in space, the Sun is very very very bright.

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:11 PM
i verify i see everything mentioned above,is it real or not i dont know,interesting find good job,lets just ignore the nay sayers or they will ruin this thread also

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:20 AM
ya i see what your talking about and yes it is puzzling hes talkin about the background of the earth on how the backgrounds looks so different and almost animated like with bad graphics

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:35 AM
These photos were already posted in another thread here:

You can see all my thoughts on this in my posts.. But I don't think it's a UFO.


new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in