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: 5
74
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Chembreather....look carefully at the sources of the first two pics!!!

One is a mosaic of photos taken by the orbiter Clementine...and the resolution is nowhere near the more clearly defined photo taken with the Hasselblad cameras by Apollo 16 astronauts!!

Really....this getting ridiculous. People make a cottage industry out of this hogwash....but only if naive folks are willing to spend money on dreck.




posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Nasa has been known to airbrush and tamper with its photos, but if it has not been mentioned yet, can we look at the possibility that there might have been someone, or something on the moon before us? There have been several threads on here about structures and artifacts on the moon, which might explain some of your rocks. Then again this could have been taken on a set, some of the moon mission were probably faked.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Good lord that's an awesome find you guys.

I clicked the link to the panorama, tell me that horizon hasn't been photoshoped as well...

oh, and in the first link, if you scroll over to where the moon rover is, you can see part of the cross hair is behind it instead in front of it like its supposed to be.

ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Odessy
 


Odessy....as to the crosshair, this has been discussed hundreds of times!!!

The crosshair is 'washed out' by the brightness of that portion of the Rover...that's all!!!



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanizle
Nasa has been known to airbrush and tamper with its photos, but if it has not been mentioned yet, can we look at the possibility that there might have been someone, or something on the moon before us? There have been several threads on here about structures and artifacts on the moon, which might explain some of your rocks. Then again this could have been taken on a set, some of the moon mission were probably faked.


What a load of BS! Show me proof of airbrushing and tampering!

Edit: The more wannabe image experts start a thread on this site claiming NASA or whatever tampers with images which are easily explainable the less I believe in these conspiracy theories..

[edit on 22-4-2009 by DGFenrir]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
firstly... theres no "stitching"

they were overlapped.

if you use certain blend options to make images show through each other:
www.photoshopgurus.com...

then the images would show both parts of the edges on top one another.

but in todays tech to get it right, you need to overlap to where the best seam is made, then add and subtract portions to get it right, then color match.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Blimey, Mike! I was looking at your OP for minutes and felt profound dissonance. Looking at the images gradually made me feel very uncomfortable. Finally, you'd proven the contention that NASA fake images to cover up something else. My bedrock of relative certainty was immediately quicksand and a series of similar threads suddenly became plausible. I was on the cusp of reevaluating every Moon image I've seen.

Luckily I noticed a couple of differences in the profiles of the rocks. I don't have the knowledge of Armap, Phage, DoF et al so I improvised. I printed out the images on cheap, translucent sketchpad paper, drew around the outlines and compared them against the window...they're different. Each image has been taken from a slightly different position. It's not science, but I now agree that they're an outcome of overlapping different images to obtain a panorama.

The 'Children's TV' approach to image analysis has meant I can sleep easily tonight. Your threads never fail to make people think...this one had me worried for a minute or two. Good work



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


This should be entertaining......!




posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
OK, let's say this is exactly what it looks like - a very crude, amateurish attempt to continue a panorama for some reason. Why on earth would NASA do this? First, I don't think they'd have made such an obvious, clumsy mistake like this. But who knows? Maybe it was a new guy who wasn't familiar with the software, and didn't properly obscure the images. Fine.

What would be the point? Are you claiming that NASA never went to the moon, and this is nothing but a scene from the Arizona desert (or some other location)? If so, why this glaring error? Why not just cut the image short before the rocks get duplicated? Same if this was really on the moon - why not just cut the image?

If you say they're hiding something photographed on the moon, why not just hide the entire series of images, instead of trying to cover something up? Or, again, why not just omit the part showing the supposed secret, instead of using such a ridiculous duplication?

I can't see anything very sinister here, to be honest. Wherever this was photographed, it's an obvious error. Mistakes happen.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by seanizle
 


seanizle....it's already been shown that the colors in photos from Mars were not 'altered' by NASA in order to deceive....it is consequence of interpreting a CCD image transmitted to Earth.

This thread is talking about actual FILM that was exposed on the Moon, then developed and printed back on Earth. Very, very different animals....



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by chiron613
 


I think the panoramas were put together for publication in a book....I have it, one of those big 'coffee-table' books I got as a present...but, it's packed in storage right now....(had to sell my house, but that's irrelevant)...

Anyway, I think the title is simply "Moon"....

*edit*....found it at Amazon..."The Moon" by Seymour Simon.

[edit on 4/22/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
It's all right there folks. The full explanation.


These panoramas were not easy to produce. The astronauts’ movements on the lunar surface were encumbered by spacesuits. The astronauts were also unable to align the cameras with a view-finder. Because the astronauts were wearing helmets, the cameras were mounted on the chests of the spacesuits. Without a view finder, the crew had to learn how to point, shoot, turn slightly, point and shoot again, etc., until a panorama of overlapping photographs was generated.




Apollo Surface Panoramas is a digital library of photographic panoramas that the Apollo astronauts took while exploring the Moon's surface. These images provide a spectacular boots-on-the-ground view of the lunar landscape. The panoramas are stitched together from individual 70mm Hasselblad frames, each of which is also accessible through this new atlas. Lunar surface features captured in the panoramas can be studied using zoom and pan tools. An annotated version of each panorama is also available to assist users with the identification of major geographic features around each Apollo landing site.




The digitized and re-rendered panoramas were produced by Warren Harold at the Johnson Space Center. That work was conducted within JSC’s Information Resources Directorate; Maura White was the NASA technical monitor. We also thank William Close within that directorate for helping us distribute the image products. This work was supported by JSC’s Advanced Projects Office while that office was developing architectural elements for the Constellation Program. Carlos Noriega and Dean Eppler within APO made this project possible. Annotation of images and the design of this atlas is provided by LPI.


www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
1. It is a panorama picture.

2. Panorama pictures are formed of many separate pictures that computer algorithm stitches together.

3. It's not easy to stitch multiple images, especially from moonscape. It's all just rocks there. For your information: there is not a perfect stitching algorithm.

4. The image looks fine to me, only by inspecting it closer the minor flaws will be detected. I judge the quality of these images to be very good.

5. What's with the "NASA exposed! Fake Moon Images?"-title? You sound very ignorant. Thumbs down for this thread.


[edit on 22-4-2009 by Adcra]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


Your right in saying "this has nothing to do with going to the moon" because we never went. That's why the photos are fake.

I'll go on to say you could be right. But then again, I could be too.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Oh no! not another one. This is definitely Photoshop. So easy to do.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Thanks to Jo Skipper for leading me on to this mystery!

You just had to do what other people did, follow the links to the original photos, to see what the problem is, a bad job at creating the panoramas.

The only two mysteries here are why they allowed such a sloppy job and why people thought such a sloppy job deserved so many stars...



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Zeus2573
 


Zeus, I think you should re-read mystiq's post...

Your response indicates that you only read what you wanted to see...this is how rumours get started.....



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DGFenrir

Originally posted by seanizle
Nasa has been known to airbrush and tamper with its photos, but if it has not been mentioned yet, can we look at the possibility that there might have been someone, or something on the moon before us? There have been several threads on here about structures and artifacts on the moon, which might explain some of your rocks. Then again this could have been taken on a set, some of the moon mission were probably faked.


What a load of BS! Show me proof of airbrushing and tampering!

Edit: The more wannabe image experts start a thread on this site claiming NASA or whatever tampers with images which are easily explainable the less I believe in these conspiracy theories..

[edit on 22-4-2009 by DGFenrir]





Here is an example of NASA being caught altering Mars images - the images below were taken from inside Endurance Crater/Sol 67, and you will notice some major discrepancies between the two images. The differences between these images are readily apparent, as you shall see below - vis-a-vis the insertion of an artificial skyline:


This is the original image - it is hosted on NASA's server.

(source: marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...)


This image is of the same area, however an artificial skyline has been created by the removal of some of the image data- this image is hosted on NASA's server.

(source; marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...)



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60
I am in NO way sure about this, so it is just a suggestion...


But I think what we see may be a "ghost" effect in the panorama, where objects, in this case Moon rocks, appear twice. The astronauts didn't use a tripod and couldn't precisely follow an horizontal axis when they took the different photos that were later stitched together to panoramic images. Also:


Besides following an horizontal or vertical axis, it is important not to slant the pics. Many stitching softwares correctly handle perspective distortions caused by the panning movement of the camera and modify the pics accordingly, so that objects boundaries match perfectly; however programs often assume that the pics have the same slant: even little angles of rotation can cause ghost effects in overlapping areas.

fc08.deviantart.com...





[edit on 22/4/09 by ziggystar60]



That is kind of a weak argument considering it happens in multiple pics at different angles.

The just shrink or enlarge the size a bit and alter the angle ever so slightly to change up the shadow on some parts but the shadows are exactly the same on some multiple rocks that are supposed to be on different parts of the moon.

Weak argument. It sounds like you mean well but I would like you to add to that.




top topics



 
74
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join