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 Exposed! Fake Moon Images?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:27 PM
reply to post by mahtoosacks
Perhaps it isnt such a bad job of photoshopping on any Nasa anomaly image.

I don't believe a lot of these mistakes are laziness, or bad work, I believe these where left that way on purpose, keeping the eye on the wrong ball so to speak, if they really didn't want people to know, we wouldn't find it.

Seems to be a lot of things getting through recently, with Moon, Mars, and other outer space images, as well as UFO pictures here at home, I wonder why?

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:36 PM
I'm speaking as a graphic artist here.

From what I'm's clearly cloned portions of the image. Yes, Photoshop is definitely being used here...or maybe PhotoPaint.

Maybe, just maybe they are "glitches", but I highly doubt that.

Why would they do this? Obviously to cover something in the edited area that they don't want us seeing.

It's a poor job...but I don't really think they care, once they cover the tracks.

They'll probably just say..."It's a software error that occures when we 'stitch' the photos back together. Don't be alarmed."

And the worse thing is, they'll get away with that, because for one, some people absolutely adore the government and government related agencies and swallow any & every bit of rubbish they give them. And two, because we all know the government doesn't lie.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:48 PM

this is why i dont think these images are the same

bigger quality in my upload section

[edit on 4/22/2009 by mahtoosacks]

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:54 PM
oh but dont ask me why the shadows are reversed from the rock on right and left.......

that one i dont get. .... ... yet

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:56 PM
There is one other thing everyone's forgetting (funny extra rocks not included, I think)


There's not enough atmosphere on the moon to have pics that are 'blurry' in the background, because there's no atmosphere scattering light. To be honest, other than the astronauts, Who has taken pictures in space? Who knows how focal length, exposure time, or any other factors can be affected by an airless environment. This doesn't explain Nasa's rock problem- but it does help with some of the pics where perspective is gone bye bye. I read somewhere that in a vacuum, distance is hard to tell because there's no fog, haze, or anything else for eyes to help gauge distance with- and it plays havoc with pictures taken.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:58 PM
Those pictures were taken at different angles. That's why there's a difference in the shadows.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:58 PM
Some of these images show without any doubt that there has been some manipulation to hide or enrich the image, however you see it. Cloning several different parts of the image can't be explained by stitching or camera data errors.

Who can demand the raw photodata back from NASA?

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:00 PM
reply to post by wylekat

then that should mean that you could see rocks on the horizon better doesnt it?

i mean... haze = blurry = smoother lines

clear = not blurry at all = exacting detail

maybe all the rocks roll off the hills

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:01 PM
reply to post by DGFenrir

i mean in each image the shadows are flipped....

shadow faces you on the rock on left... and its away on the rock on right...

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:01 PM
reply to post by mortje

Why do you think it can't be explained?

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:03 PM

Originally posted by mahtoosacks
reply to post by DGFenrir

i mean in each image the shadows are flipped....

shadow faces you on the rock on left... and its away on the rock on right...

Just check out the first larger photos on last page and compare that larer rock and that smaller rocks location relative to the mountains in the background.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:05 PM

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by Pjotr
But when you look better and see that a whole strip looks duplicated, I think i have to bet on the stitching form Spitefulgod

Well, I don't see the whole strip 'duplicated'! Can you point this out? There are only specific areas that are 'cloned'. If it was a software glitch then the entire image would have either a verticle or horizontal displacement resulting in every object being duplicated along the 'stitch'.

It's also likely as some have mentioned that specific areas may have been cloned using the clone tool. The dudes at NASA's imaging section need to be more careful, what? The cloning should have been from areas farther away! So what were they trying to hide using the clone tool?


just scroll down on the page and you cqan see the original images that make up the panoramic, the duplications don't appear on there so it's quiet obvious that they have occured on the composition

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:13 PM
yup - its nothing unusual - its from the stiching together of images in a panoramic - they fether the edges and are supposed to line them up exactly, but I guess because there are so many or for whatever reason they were a bit sloppy at the trainsmash......

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:16 PM
reply to post by wylekat are correct in that the 'haze' in Earth's atmosphere also provides a visual clue to our earth-trained eyes and brains.

BUT...crystal-clear details from 10KM?? Well....perhaps if the depth of field was such that you wanted to pick out all the detail, not only in the foreground, but the background as well. Basic photographic principles.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:24 PM
Regarding the first image in the OP:

1. Is this a 'stitched' image?

This isn't even open for discussion. If you follow the link to the panoramic image in the OP you will have taken the first step towards enlightenment (on this subject, at least).

Here, it is clearly stated that this panoramic image is a combination of these source frames:
AS17-147-22543 – AS17-147-22561

A list of every photograph used to create this image:


That's NINETEEN separate photographs that were combined to create the panoramic image.

In the OP the photographs being combined are probably AS17-147-22547 through AS17-147-22550. If you take the time to look at each of these photos, you will see that they overlap significantly - the anomalies aren't from 'filling in the gaps', they are from blending photos together. The pics in the OP zoomed into the 'seam' areas where these photographs were blended together and found anomalies. It's not surprising there are visible anomalies at the seams.

Here's a glaring anomaly just above the area depicted in the OP:

As someone stated earlier, these photographs were probably taken without a tripod (although I can't personally verify that), which would make it difficult to keep the camera level during the process of taking 19 photographs. Not only that, but the person was in a cumbersome space suit while doing so! On the moon! In low gravity!

2. "Photoshop! Software glitches! Clone tool! I'm a graphic designer!"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these photo's are from 1972 (mission 17). I would guess that these panoramic images were created without any type of computer software. Sure, NASA could try again with more modern technology, but they did a pretty good job the first time, and they are limited by the photos that they are working with.

If you're so confident in your abilities, replicate this panoramic YOURSELF! You can make your very own version of this panoramic image, because EVERY SINGLE SOURCE FRAME is provided individually, and at high resolution HERE. Try and make something as good as this NASA image(which was probably done manually, in a dark room). I am tempted to try myself, but creating this post has worn me out!

3. Don't understand photography and perspective? That's OK, but it doesn't mean we haven't been to the moon.

The first time I tried to manually make a panoramic picture using multiple photographs I screwed it up, badly. But I learned from the experience. I dug up my first failed attempt, which consists of FOUR individual photos, taken from a tripod, blended together using a computer. NOTE - the reason it's flawed like this is because of the position of the camera when the photos were taken. The point is: slight variations in angle and perspective can have consequences when trying to combine images into a panorama.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:25 PM
reply to post by azzllin

im talking about the photos hoagland tries to use as proof. giant blurry blocks of what looks like more rocks behind it.

if those were photoshopped and not glitches, then whoever did them needs to jump into a flaming pit of fire

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:36 PM
Not a bad panorama job Teebs

Good post too.

It's an interesting subject nonetheless. I'm not really sure what to make of the duplication effect seen in the photos though, as I'm not a photographer or image/graphic expert.

So I dunno, is it human error, software glitch,Nasa hiding something purposely, or just the lack of technology at the time to make a perfect panoramic shot,and they did the best they could for what they had at the time?

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Nola213]

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:51 PM
Ok, just in case I didn't make my point with my previous post...


That is one of the original images from the NASA website, which were used to make the panoramic photograph which the OP used as 'evidence'.

I must wonder if this sensationalist thread was posted with genuine intentions. Was it really so hard to look at the individual pictures used to make the panorama that the OP posted? If anyone took the time to do so it would be immediately clear that the anomalies shown are not in the original, individual photographs.

The photos which debunk this entire thread's premise are in the link that the OP himself provided!

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:57 PM
reply to post by Teebs

yeah thats why i posted i was mad after i found out the image was a panorama he was talking about.

so i fixed my attention on the image that had somehow invaded this thread as proof we didnt go to the moon.

you can see the guy standing there cant you???????? that means we went!!

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:05 PM

Originally posted by king9072
In each picture, it seems that one is from a slightly closer view point making it appear just a fraction bigger than the other. It appears like two different photos of same object stitched together.

What doesn't make sense, is there is not stitch as the image is seamless.

that's exactally my first thought as well king~! why no stitching? The only thing I'm thinking is, analog converted to digital and dup'd?

Even if it wasn't, what are the odds of this happening by nature... 1/trillion ?? even IF was by nature, how could have been by all 3 shadings?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in