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.

 

NASA Exposed! Fake Moon Images?

page: 3
74
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by reugen
Maybe the original photos were taken too far apart i.e they do not overlap ? Thats why they have to reuse some of the surface elements to make the panoramic view look seamless ?


I think that's a very interesting line of thought and I tend to agree with you here!
But those dudes in NASA's Photo Imaging Section need to be given a rap on their knuckles for their shoddy work, what?

Cheers!




posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
They are fake, we know it "they" know it. He who owns the past conspires to own the future.

The questions are did they fake it? OF course they did!
Answer: Cold war, one superior act that showed the world they had the technological might to do whatever they choose.

Are the pics still being doctored today? Of course they are!
Answer: spin and confusion 40 years later it’s still working

Ask yourself were did most of the nazi's escape to?
Answer: They claimed to have gone to the moon and have pictures to prove it.....we are debating them now.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mahtoosacks
now if these artifacts showed up in any one single image, then yes... scream insanity, but these are two photos put together at the edges. there are pretty decent programs that do this mostly successful. nothing beats an actual artist in creating them however.


Agreed! So these could most likely be two images stitched together. But those clones being only in a few areas and not along or across the entire image was what created the doubt.

So how about these two images, the second with the missing rock?




Cheers!



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
To those who think those are simply stitched images:

If they are just put together, why are background, surrounding rocks, and even where the shadows land DIFFERENT??? Why are some of them rotated ever so slightly from pic to pic? The surrounding areas where these things are are not the same- if these were stitched together, the rocks, the ground, and the background would be duplicated.

They aint. I smell a big, dead skunk.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I'm a graphic designer. Those photos could be stitched, but if they are the artist was EXTREMELY lazy. It's not that hard to overlap the images in roughly the same spot and blend, blur, and clone the seems.

However, the fact that there is NO seam in the pictures makes me think the artist either DID take the time to soften the seam (which doesn't make sense because why wouldn't he do it right) OR the artist just plopped those rocks into place carelessly.

Hell, I'll go work for NASA to photoshop their photos any day. I'd probably be paid 5 times what I'm paid now. And you guys would have nothing to talk about because my photos would be impeccable haha.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I had another idea- what if Nasa is doing this on purpose?

Lemme do the 'a picture's worth a 1000 words' deal:






I give up. I cant get it embedded.. click the link, squint a bit.

BTW- this was done in Photoshop Elements TWO. Took me like 5-10 min.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 




But look again. The location is almost the same, probably separated by a few meters.

Not "a few meters". The panorama on top was taken at Station 6, the other at Station 7. Station 6 was about 1/2km ESE of Station 7. The pans are looking south. In the pan from Station 7 "Tracey's Rock" is out of the field of view to the right, on the slope of the North Massif.

The hills in the background are 8 to 10 km away.




[edit on 4/22/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


I think the difference between these two images is that the second photo has been taken with the rock being behind the camera.
You can see subtle differences in the backgrounds of the two images,and they don't exactly line up.This could be caused by the camera being slightly closer to the mountains in the second image!

(Phage beat me to it)

[edit on 22-4-2009 by scobro]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
GREAT find.

S&f from me. i really want to hear the skeptics explanation for this



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
What about this? It shows a fist sized rock in the picture AS17-142-21723.



You can see very obvious blurring... and the strangest shadow being made from it.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Thought I'd add another link for careful consideration

good-times.webshots.com...

Its actually new photos of the next generation of moon rovers taken out in the sand dunes of Moses Lake, my hometown by NASA.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mikesingh
 




But look again. The location is almost the same, probably separated by a few meters.

Not "a few meters". The panorama on top was taken at Station 6, the other at Station 7. Station 6 was about 1/2km ESE of Station 7. The pans are looking south. In the pan from Station 7 "Tracey's Rock" is out of the field of view to the right, on the slope of the North Massif.

The hills in the background are 8 to 10 km away.




[edit on 4/22/2009 by Phage]


Exactly, Phage, beat me to that as well. I believe this is called, forgive me if I'm of but, "parallax"? effect. Where thing in the far far distance will look the same, when obejcts close, will move or disapear, when pictures are taken from 100yards even more away from eachother, and to the side some distance as well. This is what sprouts up alot of the "fake plane" believers, they just don't understand this.

The cloning paroramas...well interesting at first glance, but when I look closely, I can see exact vertical, and horizontal "cuts" in the image, when it is stitched together, there everywhere on some of them. Software glitch, or even human error/laziness.

It's just like the smoke coming off WTC tower in this video....



Why this is appearing in a video of a live shot though is beyond me, unless it was made by someone, to present disinformation.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Nola213]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
While I find the duplicates interesting, I'd have to lean towards stitching if only because of common sense. What... were rocks in short supply when making a fake film of a moon landing? If faking this, one would assume they would not be so dense as to repeat pictures of rocks. That there are so many instances of this, point to the fact that they had to know, and didn't care, because it's just an anomaly from putting the pictures together.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Why is it that these rubber stamp artifacts ONLY show up in panorama shots?

Isn't it more plausible that these duplicates show up because of errors made when stitching the individual pictures that make up the composite into a single image. Remember all this was done before programs such as Adobe Photoshop were available.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I find it just amazing that anyone would think we never landed men on the moon. 911 I am not so sure about, but I watched and listened to the Niel Armstrong mission, it was not a hoax..and there was no reason to even attempt such a thing.

The Moon and Mars photos I suspect are a combination of stitching of panoramic photos and sloppy removal of things NASA does not want anyone to see.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by expat2368]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Zeus2573
 


This has nothing to do with not going to the moon. This has everything to do with HIDING the amazing truths and discoveries on moon and hoarding it for themselves, while they continue, in the last decades to lower US IQ and MC everyone. They've gone to the moon. Possibly quite a bit previous to this public show. Not that I believe they were ever welcomed by the ets using it.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Mike
In the bottom picture, I think it's our perspective, I think that is the rock, right over on the right hand side, some of the surrounding rocks seem to fit but obviously look a little different because of the distance, the place is so vast and desolate, we have trouble seeing distances on the moon, I found that out at a trip to Jodrel Bank and watched their movie about the moon landings, the movie gives great credit to the fact as to why we can't see items left behind by the missions, pulling back from a close up and back to the orbiter, I know it was CGI but promised the scale was very real.

I could be very wrong, but that deff could be it in the bottom pic all the way to the right, and with more light than the top image.


[edit on 22/4/2009 by azzllin]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


mike, referring to this post (click the blue thingy) and to all who fell for it....tsk, tsk, tsk.

As ITF said, throwing fuel on the fire....of ignorance and innuendo!!!

Please, everyone....look at those two photos. They are obviously taken from different vantage points. AND, the hills in the distance looking, as someone said, too 'silky smooth'?? Because they are roughly 10 KM away!!!

Check this out....on Earth, when you see a mountain off in the distance, you 'know' it has trees on it, and it's lumpy-bumpy...but, because of the distance, it looks 'smooth'. This is obvious to us, because we have other visual cues to define the perspective. We are FAMILIAR with all the other little bits to give our brains the recognition of distance. The moonscape is alien to us...it fools the eye...hence, these stupid hoax threads....



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


i just dont think they were taken in the same spot either.

the land doesnt look exactly the same.

notice the smaller rock on the right of the second image doesnt appear in the first image either. you would think it does because there looks be a rock that fits that description somewhat in the first.

they are different, and i need to play with this a little more to prove it.

if you drive down the road, the objects closest move faster than objects at the horizon and almost seems to stand still. i think thats the same thing here. could be from a different hill even.

like i said tho, im looking into it more.



Ive always said that nasa should just hire me for photoshop needs. i could do so much better a job than half those guys. not like id tell you guys what i was doing there anyways!!



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join