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: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 

Phage (!!!) posted this link in the "Moon Landing Hoax Apollo 17" thread, I was surprised to find a perfect illustration of an unrealistic black sky. Now as I said, there are two explanations, either it's done to hide something, or it's done by filtering noise. What's the point you say. Every digital camera does it in hardware to hide digital noise and improve the aspect of details in low light, and scanner's software do it too, as an optional post-processing usually. Removing noise also makes JPEG compression more efficient. The images are "altered", but the intentions behind the alteration are open to interpretation. Saying that NASA is hiding something there is pure speculation.

[edit on 2009-3-22 by nablator]




posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


OK, I admit it, I do not understand what you are saying.


On that page for which you provided a link he is referenced as someone from ASU, working with NASA on the THEMIS data and responsible for the THEMIS site, an ASU site.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 


Yes, and also the dynamic range has an impact as well. It's possible to get the exposure balance off and drastically underexpose areas in scenes with hight contrast between the highlights and shadows. Film is less susceptible, in my experience, in still photography, but it's still affected (filters can solve a lot of the problems).

[edit on 22-3-2009 by jackphotohobby]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 


Chances are more probable that the inserting of this "perfect black sky" after scanning the prints from the original negatives, to which is where the painted out background was done in the darkroom, is to cover up any aged fainting of that painting done to the sky on the negative.

Paint tends to fade out and become transparent after a number of years.

Scanning those prints, or scanning the trasparancy negatives, would reveal any blemishes from faded paint jobs.

An example of that is when white out is used on a piece of paper to correct an error, and that paper is scanned in certian scanners where the scanning can actually see through the white out, revealing both the correction and the error.

Just my opinion, and based on being an electronics engineer who knows everything there is about scanners and scanning film with paint on them, it stands to good reason that later, they would insert this "perfect black sky" onto the digital copy to cover up any of those faded out paint jobs on the negatives.

Ever wonder how they "restore" those old faded out color movies and cartoons when transfered over to high def DVD's? They scan frame by frame from the original negative which is faded out due to age, and in the digital world, they re-color each frame and create a new master frame.

In this case with the "perfect black" sky..its the same process..to restore that black sky from the faded out painted black sky off of the orignal negative.

It is also pure specualtion to say NASA is not trying to hide something.

Works both ways.

Cheers!!!!

[edit on 22-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 


The panoramic composite was created by David M. Harland, a space historian, not NASA. The frames used are AS17-137- 20991 to 21007.


A pointless post. I know.

[edit on 3/22/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Chances are more probable that the inserting of this "perfect black sky" after scanning the prints from the original negatives, to which is where the painted out background was done in the darkroom, is to cover up any aged fainting of that painting done to the sky on the negative.
I don't think so, the black sky on a negative would be white (transparent), so they would not have the need to paint it over, they just had to scrape the emulsion from the negative, and that does not change with time.

Also, from what I have seen, the paint used in the negatives does not change with time, is as consistent as the emulsion itself (if the revelation was done as it should).



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by RFBurns
Chances are more probable that the inserting of this "perfect black sky" after scanning the prints from the original negatives, to which is where the painted out background was done in the darkroom, is to cover up any aged fainting of that painting done to the sky on the negative.
I don't think so, the black sky on a negative would be white (transparent), so they would not have the need to paint it over, they just had to scrape the emulsion from the negative, and that does not change with time.

Also, from what I have seen, the paint used in the negatives does not change with time, is as consistent as the emulsion itself (if the revelation was done as it should).


White paint fades just as much as black paint does due to age. If paint did not fade, why would anyone need to repaint anything?

And it would not be necessary to "white out" the entire sky on the negative, just those certian areas they want to cover. Those, over time, will definately show up under a scan.

Lets not forget that we are talking about paint formulas of the late 1960's, not these newer formulas that do last longer.

The negative itself degrades over time, that is a known fact. As I pointed out with restoring old movies or cartoons, there is a process used to restore those to their new life.


Cheers!!!!


[edit on 22-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
White paint fades just as much as black paint does due to age. If paint did not fade, why would anyone need to repaint anything?
White paint is not used, the negative is scrapped to remove the emulsion, making it transparent on that area, that's how a black area is made on a negative, I have seen it done some times.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by RFBurns
White paint fades just as much as black paint does due to age. If paint did not fade, why would anyone need to repaint anything?


White paint is not used, the negative is scrapped to remove the emulsion, making it transparent on that area, that's how a black area is made on a negative, I have seen it done some times.


Seen it done where? Can you put up some examples of that you have seen done?

The negative is "chemically" scrapped, not physically. Lets be specific here in photographic processes. Once those negatives are chemically scrapped, they are then ready for processing, or inserting something onto them to add, or to cover something.

Photographic negative paint was used. This technique was a common use in film, particularly in Hollywood productions. There were no CGI capabilities in the late 60's or earlier, so much of those special effects you see in old Hollywood productions are done by "strippers", or negative painters inserting effects onto negatives.

RCH's book, Dark Mission, points out that Hollywood "strippers" were used to work those negatives, which makes perfect sense. If there were someone experienced with negative painting, it would be those who did that as a profession. NASA was not in the business of making movies, but those "strippers" were.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Here ill do you one better here is the raw images acquired on Sol 168 of Opportunity's mission to Meridiani Planum. theres probably 30 images of this feature. So look at the series it might clear things up for you. You can actually see in the pictures the rover gets closer! And why would they even care to alter the photo the image in the picture is maybe 10 feet across its not a mountain? What could they possibly be trying to hide?


opertunity link

Ps Exuberent again i say you cant say the image was edited unless you know where it comes from! and the number in the jpg tells you if the image was edited by the way

12t digit in jpg =E
Beginning E - Type of EDR, which are raw with no camera
model linearization or radiometric correction. If no
beginning E, then it is a Reduced Data Record (RDR).




[edit on 3/22/09 by dragonridr]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Seen it done where? Can you put up some examples of that you have seen done?
I have seen it done by my sister, who is a professional photographer. I have also seen it done by people in advertising, while preparing the photos to be sent to the printer. Unfortunately I can not show any example (but even if I could there would be nothing to see, that is the point in doing a good job at altering a negative).

Maybe some ATS member that has done photography (lab work and post lab work) can shed some light (no pun intended
) on this.


The negative is "chemically" scrapped, not physically.
Physically or chemically, the result is the same when trying to make a black area, the removal of the emulsion.


Lets be specific here in photographic processes.
That is why I hope someone whit real experience on this type of work can help us here.


Once those negatives are chemically scrapped, they are then ready for processing, or inserting something onto them to add, or to cover something.
Only if they want to add something that is not completely black, what will become black on the final photo does not exist on a negative.


Photographic negative paint was used.
Yes, to paint some areas in black or grey, that will become white or grey on the final print.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Maybe it's just me, but I'd think if there were pictures with clear evidence of something they wanted to hide, they would not touch them up, they would simply not produce those photos. And if they did touch them up, we'd honestly never realize it. And it's also possible they made hide things much like the FOIA strikes out what seems to be some pretty mundane stuff - it's classified or protected (but ours), even if it's nonsensical information (you'll find stuff like street names and other things stuck out of FOIA documents).

It's still baffling we have such at-odds sides regarding NASA. They are hiding stuff they don't want us to know! (but apparently, are just terrible at it). NASA is trying to disclose information! The government doesn't want us to know! Yet.. they let NASA disclose information to us. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

I still firmly believe that anything on Mars or in space that is truly something NASA don't want us to know about, we would NOT know about it. It's like most rocks on Mars. I feel they are all rocks. Then someone produced a 'wrench' looking pictures, and I thought perhaps it was something amazing. I showed it to two of our senior geologists. And what did they say "Yea, that's a rock." Without a shadow of a doubt, they knew. I think NASA is like this. They look at stuff and realize full well what it is, and it's nothing odd or secret or anything else. They release it, and people go nuts over it.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
"By the way we have discovered a base on the otherside of the moon

geometric shapes towers, there were spherical buildings, there are very tall towers and things that look like er radar dishes but they were large structures.some of the structures are half a mile in in in size so they are huge structures.Some of the buildings seem to have reflective surffaces on them some er a couple of the towers reminded me of cooling towers at er power generating plants they had that shape"




Lets forget about the them and us mentality and look at the video.

Of course NASA doesn't know anything though and are working in publics best interest.

Ask yourself why is it that everyday there is something in the MSM regarding UFOS? of course its easier to deny than it is to accept that ET is all around us and that soon we are going to learn a small portion of this truth.

But for whos benefit?

[edit on 22-3-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
It is also pure specualtion to say NASA is not trying to hide something.

Works both ways.

It's also pure speculation to say that the Pope does not eat children for breakfast. Or the Dalai Lama -- actually one of his favorite meals according to Chinese sources
. It's a way to spread disinformation, by implying any idea is as likely as its opposite. Repeating lies is also very effective in a smear campaign. This is what this video in the OP and many "let's bash NASA" thread look like to me.

Note that I don't know whether NASA is hiding something, (how would I know?). I'm as skeptical of anything presented by NASA as I'm skeptical of conspiracy theories. I've been looking at clear cut evidence of tampered or hoaxed NASA pictures, because I'm open to the idea of some cover up of alien activity on the Moon or other planets. The evidence you presented about the thermal readings on Mars are difficult for me to understand but this is the way to go. If you find a clear cut case of NASA disinformation I'll support you 100%. I like to analyze images. I've been comparing all available pictures of many interesting areas on the Moon, from Lunar Orbiter and Apollo missions, trying to find a discrepancy, a missing crater, anything. For example, did you know that Lunar Orbiter frames were scanned and transmitted twice in some cases, for quality checks and lost information recovery? I've been comparing them, hoping to detect one of these airbrushed areas people keep talking about on ATS. So far, nothing. If anything is hidden I think it is in areas that were NOT imaged in a good enough resolution. There's more to find by studying gaps in coverage than actual pictures.

OTOH I have found stupid errors and widespread jumping to conclusions in conspiracy stuff presented as evidence of NASA hiding something, like the OP's video. So it doesn't work exactly both ways, 50/50, even though I agree on the possibility.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 

This is one of the videos that started my search for ET evidence or cover-up in pictures. The interviews are very good, but the photographic illustration from Clementine and LO are completely misleading. Anyone who actually studied the sources (as opposed to gobbling YouTube disinfo) knows the truth about them.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by nablator
Anyone who actually studied the sources (as opposed to gobbling YouTube disinfo) knows the truth about them.


Please, pretend I am on those people that gobble up disinfo on YT. Educate me as to why they arent true sources. I am not goading you here I am being serious please explain to me why these 2 people cannot be trusted and are lying to the camera.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


That is an interesting prospective. Do you think the creator of all things, which includes the vast universe, would only have one tiny tiny blue pebble to represent the pinacle of said creation, swimming all alone and so isolated amongst that vastness of...nothing????

Cheers!!!!


Not nothing. A vast array of stars that declare the glory of God. God is limitless in his power, his creative power, and it is displayed for our benefit, that we might be humble and realize the kind of God who made us. The Bible says there is no excuse for anyone not to believe in God because he reveals himself in his Creation.

And so he does.

But people reject this almighty, magnificent God in favor of greys and slimy vampires and lieing demons.

They think ET is going to save them, something out of a Zionist Hollywood movie. They don't believe history that God walked this earth, controlled the weather, fed multitudes with a few loaves and fishes, raised the dead and healed the sick, and finally gave himself in our place to die for our sins that we might not be estranged from God.

They believe that matter is God, prefer to worship dirt, that somehow dirt can create itself out of nohting and then clump together to form all the life forms we see. Even if they could orgnaize themselves to form, say, a cell, where does the life force come from? Something that is dead stays dead. You can freeze and preserve it, but once the life has left it, it's gone forever.

Yet they believe in humanoids from another planet that they will save us, mortals such as we, with all our own faults, and reject God who has no fault, who is the Creator of all, who keeps the atoms from going poof, who gives us the life in our bodies -- our Creator they reject in favor of an ET.

I don't get it at all. But idols do have a way of turning around and biting and devouring people.


Your God and other's spacemen are the same thing.

it's just a matter of perspective...imo of course.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
This is of great concern to some who want new verification
of the Moon Walks.

If an orbiting Moon satellite can't be managed is one thing, but
to finally get Landing photos, they will be of no use because of past
accusations of doctoring moon photos.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 

I'm not saying the two interviewed people are lying. They have first hand evidence, and I don't. However in the first interview I think some editing can be done to remove defects in pictures, without faking them. The interview is misleading because it depends on people automatically assuming any editing is done to hide things. If you study Lunar Orbiter pictures for example, you'll see they are full of rounded white shapes, triangles, and many interesting patterns. There's hardly any picture without some obvious defects. There are so many that it's impossible to clean them all, it would require an army of airbrushers working for years. Showing one of these patterns as it is done at 3:22 is very misleading. Because viewers will assume that it is something exceptional. It is not. In Apollo pictures the quality is much better but I'm sure they had some problems with emulsion defects and dust in scans, as any photographer knows, especially at the level of magnification these scans are shown. So I wouldn't be shocked to learn that some typical UFO shapes were removed before they are "sold" to the public. I do the same with my own scans of old photographs.

"Is this a UFO?"
"I can't tell you that."
>>> What I knew he meant is that it was.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
(Post cut in two by ATS for unknown reasons ?!?)

>>> This is an interpretation.

We are led to believe it is a conspiracy to hide UFOs. Now there's another way to interpret the same dialog. Some white dots on the pictures could be UFOs, or could be defects, there is no way to know. "I can't tell you that" does not necessarily mean "I am not allowed to tell".

The second interview is more convincing, but why do I get the nagging feeling that Sergent Karl Wolf is pulling our leg? It's about how secrets are kept in any organization. You don't go telling outsiders "BTW we discovered a base on the back side of the Moon", it is very much compartmentalized, and this guy had no need to know.

To illustrate this interview, they show the smudges in Clementine pictures, and these are very unconvincing because NASA could have done a much better job of hiding them so no one would suspect. Missing data due to transmissions is not as unlikely as failing to match the areas with other pictures, from Lunar Orbiter and Apollo, to make a seamless texture. The second reason is, large smudged areas are huge, visible from Earth, and any huge base there would have been discovered by Earth-based astronomers. We are lead to believe that all of these huge areas, especially those vertical strips matching the polar orbit of the Clementine satellite, are evidence of a cover-up, despite their preposterous shape and position. The Greys populating the Moon are not that stupid, are they? They live in underground bases.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join