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.

 

If We Can Trus NASA Why Do They Alter Their Photos Before Releasing Them To The Public?

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Space-related pictures CAN be forged -- and the forgers caught.

See www.jamesoberg.com...

Enjoy!




posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
For people like me with no understanding of the whole photo shop and general knowledge of colors and shading this makes so little difference. To me the video showed great evidence but I haven't the vaguest idea about a pixel, absolute darkness or any of that.

I do enjoy this though and have often wondered where the stars went on some of the "classic" NASA images. As the image would not have been just as beautiful sitting in a sea of shining stars, why would they alter these things? I don't trust them. red



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


You left out the masters of it there Jim. Not entirely accurate. Its a good thing we have soooo much more resources than just one these days.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


The fact that you are here Jim, says volumes

To those of us following certain threads you involve with

(only NASA ) and you take the "theres nothing there stance"

Just confirms to those who are looking there is something there

Personal Note ........RF BURNS , you rule

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Seany]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


Images have been altered, not censured. There is a difference.

Some of the Images had colors altered. I can except that color variations
will occur due to difference in Atmospheres.

All the Moon Conspiracies have been proved to be false.
It all comes down to whether you accept a simple, reasonable, rational
explanation of those errors. Or whether you believe somebody selling a
book is more credible (Hoagland just for starters)



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seany
reply to post by JimOberg
 


The fact that you are here Jim, says volumes

To those of us following certain threads you involve with

(only NASA ) and you take the "theres nothing there stance"

Just confirms to those who are looking there is something there

Personal Note ........RF BURNS , you rule


Sudden appearances do seem to raise the suspicion level a lot.

Its ok though, we are not on any puppet strings dancing when commanded.

Thanks for the compliment.


Back to topic...

Lets talk about the images from Mars for a bit.

A so called "true" color image from the Opportunity rover. Sol069B_P2582_1




A more accurate representation of "true" color, though some would have you believe that because of narrow filters on the pan cam, that a red, green and blue narrow bandwidth filter would give you nothing but completely red saturated images.



Raw data processed with Envi 4.6.1

These are not airbrushed, but as anyone can clearly see, even the dirt and rocks look more natural in the 2nd photo. And it looks like a nice calm Martian day, no major wind kicking up red dust into the air. Break out the BBQ and steaks!!


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 21-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Some of the astroNOTs even admit the photos were made in a studio, they say to "replace other photos that didn't come out or were damaged."

Anyway,
This link www.youtube.com... is to a NASA film, where they admit in their own film that the radiation is prohibitive beyond earth's atmosphere and they are trying to figure out a way to deal with it so they can hopefully have a moon landing in 2020. Yet we are supposed to believe we sent men to the moon nine times in the late '60s and early '70s? Time to wake up. Another hoax, scam by our beloved government, not as audacious as 9/11, but close. They are such fakers, such stagers, the Luciferians. Bart Sibrel says the fake moon voyages were done to win the cold war with Russia. I say, no, that's not it at all. Russia knew they were fake as much as anybody else. The purpose of the fake moon voyages were to convince the gullible public that space travel is possible, in order to prepare us for a future fake alien invasion to usher in the New World Order.

Check this link out: nasascam.bravehost.com... THEN come back and say NASA really sent men to the moon six times, or even one time.

If anybody ever were to closely examine the hokey "lunar lander" with the spider legs, the gold foil, anybody would know that nobody would attempt to land on anything, even in the ocean with 20 parachutes attached, in a contraption like that. (no exaggeration). Soon as I learn how to attach images I will put one up here, but just go and look at the thing in all the pics NASA has up on its own site. No WAAAAYYY.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
All the Moon Conspiracies have been proved to be false.


They have also been proven to be true.

It all depends on who/what you want to believe at the end of the day.

Such closed mindedness will only ensure that any truths that maybe hidden will certainly stay that way!



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
This is amazingly solvable. Anyone- SOMEONE go find an original book, a National Geographic, SOMETHING that has original ORIGINAL Apollo pics in them, scan them, and then use the techniques shown in the video. Yes, you'll have the print dots to contend with, but the basic gist should be apparent.

So quit squabbling, and go do some REAL research with real books, kids.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
With todays technology you can read a person's street sign from 25,000 miles up, but cannot get a clear picture of a ufo a 1,000ft away.. all you get is a blob of light or a bunch of fuzz. And this goe's for everyone too...must be hoax..lol....show me a good clear untampered picture......



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Originally posted by RFBurns
but as anyone can clearly see, even the dirt and rocks look more natural in the 2nd photo.

While I doubt that any of the two photos you've shown are accurate or the 'true' color of Mars, but yes, you're right.. the second definitely looks more convincing and more natural.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
A more accurate representation of "true" color, though some would have you believe that because of narrow filters on the pan cam, that a red, green and blue narrow bandwidth filter would give you nothing but completely red saturated images.
How can we know if that is more accurate representation?

Combining the images from the Red, Green and Blue filters creates a RGB image, but it does not represent how things looked when the photos were taken because each photo had its settings set for that specific wavelenght, while a common colour photo would have its setting set for the best visible light spectrum.

But if you use the radiometrically corrected images, that take into account the different settings for the different channels, the image looks like the first one, with an orange hue all over, like what we see on Earth during a sand storm.



The same images without applying the radiometric correction look like this.



We have to wait for a full visible spectrum camera on Mars to really know how things look, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be a mixed of these two versions, something like this.




posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

The thing is, there is no reason to believe that the first image is mostly red because of a dust storm.. at least not to me. There is no apparent dust on the lens. I would imagine quite a dirty lens if there were actually a dust storm in that area.. at least, the view would not be that clear. The biggest difference between the mostly red and mostly blue images, is that one makes the planet look dead and baron.. and the other makes it look more similar to Earth.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I highly doubt anything went anyplace near Mars. NASA is a bunch of Nazi pikers who want us to think science can do wonderful things to set us up for a real hokey fake alien invasion they are going to spring on us, using their chimeras they have bred in their underground labs.

These people are all Freemasons and devili worshippers. Every last single one of the astroNOTs were Freemasons.

The only science they understand is alchemy and black magic out of the Cabala.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz

Originally posted by skeptic_al
All the Moon Conspiracies have been proved to be false.


They have also been proven to be true.

It all depends on who/what you want to believe at the end of the day.

Such closed mindedness will only ensure that any truths that maybe hidden will certainly stay that way!


It looks like somebody bought a Hoagland Book



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
We am just a bunch of germs under an alien microscope and NASA and secret government is hiding this from us.

That am the big secret I was told by shadow being sitting on my chest one night.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by RFBurns
A more accurate representation of "true" color, though some would have you believe that because of narrow filters on the pan cam, that a red, green and blue narrow bandwidth filter would give you nothing but completely red saturated images.


How can we know if that is more accurate representation?


Because it is pure nonsense to conclude that even with narrow bandwidth RGB filters, that your going to only get red images.


Originally posted by ArMaP
Combining the images from the Red, Green and Blue filters creates a RGB image, but it does not represent how things looked when the photos were taken because each photo had its settings set for that specific wavelenght, while a common colour photo would have its setting set for the best visible light spectrum.


Thats not the point. The point is that your not going to only get red saturated images from 3 seperate filters that were fine tuned before leaving Earth to get a close representation of what they pick up on Mars with Mars lighting conditions.

It amazes me that every time someone throws up any image of Mars from the MER rovers that shows any hint of blue, that you all come dog piling in and screaming "NOT TRUE COLOR". Well DUH!!! Your NOT going to get "TRUE" color from 3 narrow bandwidth filters...DUH!!

You WILL get images that contain more than just RED from 3 different color filters. THAT is the point.

Now..if you only got RED from the RED, GREEN and BLUE filters, that sundial they use to CALIBRATE the camera each time they go to take a picture, that sundail with the color tabs would be nothing but RED.

But they are not.

So if you CALIBRATE your layering of the 3 filter bands from the raw datasets based on that sundail CALIBRATION setting, your going to get a pretty darned "CLOSE" approximation of what the scene looked like when the picture was taken.

And even if you had a 3 percent, hell even a 10 percent variance in light intensity between that sundail and the scene to be shot, which is HIGHLY unlikely, your not going to end up with a RED saturated image.


Originally posted by ArMaP
But if you use the radiometrically corrected images, that take into account the different settings for the different channels, the image looks like the first one, with an orange hue all over, like what we see on Earth during a sand storm.


Are you aware of the processing program Envi? That is a 8 grand piece of software written to properly process independant bands of image data. It includes radiometric settings, as well as every bell and whistle imaginable.

That image I posted above...was processed using Envi 4.6.1. I think that it is about as close of an approximation to what it looks like that your going to get, and a more accurate result than you would be getting from some photoshop program.



Originally posted by ArMaP
We have to wait for a full visible spectrum camera on Mars to really know how things look,


Perhaps. But not necessarily what your suggesting. Really ArMaP, have you even looked at the bandwidths of those RGB filters on those cameras and see that they are adequate enough to get images that are not entirely red?

What we need is for a human being standing on Mars to find out the actual color. But we can wait for that full spectrum RGB camera someday that most likely is going to show you what I posted above.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 21-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al

Originally posted by skibtz

Originally posted by skeptic_al
All the Moon Conspiracies have been proved to be false.


They have also been proven to be true.

It all depends on who/what you want to believe at the end of the day.

Such closed mindedness will only ensure that any truths that maybe hidden will certainly stay that way!


It looks like somebody bought a Hoagland Book


You do realize that coming into a thread, with a sarcastic comment, no trackrecord on ATS, with a driveby post, brings up suspicion of your motives. Here's a thought, read this.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

On a side note, apologist and defenders of lieing bureaucracies also brings up a myriad of questions. The main question being WHY?
And does little to enhance your credibility.

So get snarky, we're used to it.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Nice Pics RFBurns!

They reminded me of the time that NASA forgot to d'red the background image at a press conference.

This particular conference was held back at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on jan 4th, 2004, and the image displayed at that time has some readily apparent differences from the images normally released to the public - this image is not red-saturated.

*The image on display at the JPL press conference has more in common with those images that ATS members have matched to the colour-calibration tool on Spirit's sundial and the Viking Lander's own calibration tables...






*Here is another image of same area displayed at the JPL press conference - notice the red-saturation/d'red - which was not present in the image that was used for the background image at JPL:



Jim Oberg just said: "Space-related pictures CAN be forged -- and the forgers caught."

*And it looks like he was right - NASA was caught. ;-P

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Originally posted by RFBurns
but as anyone can clearly see, even the dirt and rocks look more natural in the 2nd photo.

While I doubt that any of the two photos you've shown are accurate or the 'true' color of Mars, but yes, you're right.. the second definitely looks more convincing and more natural.


Not exactly accurate, but far more accurate than a red saturated image from 3 seperate color filters.

Now..here is a picture taken by Viking back in 76. This probe's camera did not use narrow bandwidth filters like the MER rovers have.




Pretty..isnt it. Now to those who bark "THATS NOT TRUE COLOR"..then explain why an analog camera system on a probe from 1976 took a picture like that above, when clearly NASA decided to crank up the RED channel to make it appear as nothing but RED, when in fact, the left portion is with all 3 channels correctly balanced????

Cheers!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join