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: 7
20
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
The reason I do not give ANY credit to those who claim UFOs are real and NASA has found ancient buildings etc, is because they will take any shot off the web and claim it is 100% legit in the backing of their claims.

Deny ignorance...riiiight.

Like the people who believe any talk from an authority figure, you are just on the opposite spectrum, and just as bad.




posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
We truly cant trust NASA everything they tell is a HOAX.Pictures,Videos everything!It`s just they can`t tell us what the back story really is why give us such stupid remarks or reports?They can`t tell us the truth on what lies out there!



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mugen1005
We truly cant trust NASA everything they tell is a HOAX.Pictures,Videos everything!It`s just they can`t tell us what the back story really is why give us such stupid remarks or reports?They can`t tell us the truth on what lies out there!


If NASA could prove there was an alien presence on the moon they would out it in a heart beat. They continually have to worry about budget underfunding etc. With that kinda discovery they would end up with the defense departments budget money is a big motivator. In case you havent noticed every time things cool off in the public eye NASA tries to find a new discovery to keep those dollars coming.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


Alrighty then! You found them out and NASA is quaking in their boots. I do find some problems with your explanation of tampering by NASA. 1. You can go to any observatory anywhere in the world and point a high powered telescope at the moon and see only what is there.... the moon. If there were some evidence of any structures it would have made news decades ago. 2. NASA cannot control everything that is filmed or control every picture taken. I know that NASA omits images that may contain images of certain objects in the sky for security reasons because you do not want others to know what you are using to spy on them with. 3. NASA does hide things from the public because of the fear of public reaction and the fact that our government will shut them down for divulging what they deem are so called national security secrets.
Until we the people stand up as one we will never know the truth plain and simple. The only other way we will ever know if we are being visited is if "they" meaning the aliens decide they are not going to keep themselves hidden any longer. So if it were me I would not worry about what you think is being hidden from you by NASA and worry more about why we have been kept from the truth. Could it be that the truth of "others" visiting our little blue corner of the universe is a precursor to the extinction of the human race? Or maybe it could be they are here to insure our existence so we can help with some problem "they" might be facing.

Until we are let in on the big secret the government feels we do not need to know then we will never know.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by rwdavis
 


Hahaha, the news. Yeah, and even though theres an overwhelming amount of evidence for the existance of UFO's, the main stream still laughs at us and thinks we're all kooks and crazies for believing in them.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
reply to post by rwdavis
 


Hahaha, the news. Yeah, and even though theres an overwhelming amount of evidence for the existance of UFO's, the main stream still laughs at us and thinks we're all kooks and crazies for believing in them.


Er, thats not strictly true UnconventionalRyan, alot of the MSM are puting the mockery to one side now and because they are actually allowed to report this subject now, alot of the journalist are taking this subject seriously.

Gone are the 'little green men in spaceships landing on the whitehouse lawn' instead its reported as a 'phenomena' or 'mystery lights' I wil post some examples when I check my email


Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4




[edit on 23-3-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
.... just looked at the You Tube post by undercover alien about UFO's seen during a shuttle satellite launch. All it is, is debris from the ejection charge to move the satellite away from the shuttle bay. This is the kind of stuff that is a total waste of bandwidth on the web, and here on ATS.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
As promised, I made some tests to see if there is a difference between a normal photo taken with the visible spectrum and a photo made with three photos, one for each channel (red, green and blue).

My sister got me some samples of filters (they are not filters for cameras, they are light filters), and I chose the ones closest to the ones used by the Rover's cameras.

These are the characteristics of the three filters, showing what wavelenghts they let through them.

Red


Green


Blue


Combination of all three filters


It's noticeable that they are not narrow-band filters, so if the differences may be stronger with narrow-band filters I do not have any way of knowing it, at least for now.

 
First, a colour target from a HP scanner.

Photo taken with sunlight and "auto levels" applied on Photoshop.


Same conditions, but composite made with three photos from each channel.


The colours on the composite look stronger, and they are farther from what I see than the visible light photo.

 
Same colour target, under artificial light, giving it a more yellow tint.


Same conditions, but composite.


There is a bigger difference between these two photos than between those taken under sunlight, and that is probably because the blue filter, when using the artificial light, gave a very dark photo, so the auto levels did not had as many data to work as with the other channels, making a yellowish image.

 
Now, a photo from a sunlit, outdoor view (what I see from my dinning-room window)


(click for full size)

And the composite for the same view, some seconds after.


(click for full size)

Some things that are visible on this comparison:
1. the clouds were too fast.

2. the blues are stronger, both the sky and a building on the background in the right side are bluer
3. all reds are weaker, the reflected light on the wall on the left side, for example, is not as red on the composite as it is on the "real" photo
4. the more neutral tones become a little weird, probably because of the lack of red, but I am not sure

One thing that is not visible (and that only I can see) is that the "real" photo is much closer to the true look of that scene, although it was a little darker than in "real.

Considering this, I think (even more than before) that just making composites with the Rover's photos creates images with too many blue and little red. That does not mean that the reddish NASA photos are correct (I have no way of knowing) but it makes me think that they are really closer to what can be seen on Mars.

 
The camera was on automatic for all photos.
I used the camera's black and white (greyscale) feature for the three different channels' photos.
I used auto levels in the colour photos and on each channel to make it the most automatic possible, and closer to what we do with the Rovers' photos.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join