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.

 

[Busted] NASA Tries to Conceal Lunar Structures?

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   
NASA caught altering images to hide evidence?


Whilst perusing the various Apollo image Archives, I began to notice some strange discrepancies in some of the images and one in particular.

Different servers had different versions of what was supposed to be the "same" image...

So I decided to look a little harder at the images to try and figure out what someone was attempting to conceal. If I could figure out what they were trying to conceal; maybe I could start to see why they'd want to engage in such a deception.

This is the image which first piqued my attention. You see, this wasn't the first time that I had seen this image and I certainly didn't remember it being so bright - something was amiss:


( This Manipulated Image can be Found Here )


So I checked on some of the images that I had seen before - Lo and behold I was Right! NASA did alter the image - or somebody else did. This fact is readily apparent from the older, much darker image below:


(Image version free of NASA manipulation can be found here )


After establishing that the image had indeed been manipulated, I began to examine in greater detail some of the the older images which had seemingly not had their brightness levels increased. Not having the time too look at all of the images, I chose to focus on the Apollo 16 image which had originally attracted my attention.

This is what I discovered over the horizon whilst analysing the older version of that image:


(These structures are conspicuously absent from the manipulated version of the image)

Enhanced:

(Image enhancement done by RFBurns)


So NASA altered this image. Perhaps they did it to conceal evidence of lunar structures or perhaps to hide mistakes.

Nevertheless, someone at NASA clearly determined that the alteration of this Apollo 16 image and it's presentation to the public in an altered version was somehow justifiable. Alas.

Then again, perhaps the scratches were really 'there'; on the massive Scotchlite screen used by Kubrick to film scenes using Frontal projection.



But if NASA will manipulate images and deceive us by altering them just to hide a couple of mistakes, what else are they capable of? What other deceptions have NASA engaged in?

I wonder what NASA is trying to conceal by engaging in this sort of deception: it could be they are hiding evidence, or maybe just covering up past acts of photographic ineptitude. Regardless of their motivations, it has now been established that NASA did indeed manipulate this image and as a result of those alterations made by NASA; certain things in the image are no longer visible....

Poor Form NASA.







Busted.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Exuberant1]




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


That is interesting. Was there an official statement from Nasa regarding the now missing object in AS16-118-18957?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by derpif
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


That is interesting. Was there an official statement from Nasa regarding the now missing object in AS16-118-18957?


There is no official statement regarding the manipulation of the image the OP is based on. ...

That image can be found here

The other images were used as examples of other pole-like structures on the moon. They have been discussed on ATS in the past on other threads.


*Additional: This is not the first time pole-like structures have been sighted on the moon.

Found by Mikesingh (AS16-118-18957)


Some of you may be familiar with this one - A pole several hundred feet in length laying against a hill on the moon:

(image AS17-136-20767)



[edit on 29-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by derpif
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


That is interesting. Was there an official statement from Nasa regarding the now missing object in AS16-118-18957?


which object do you mean?


+26 more 
posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Those are artifacts of the image, not actual structures. If they are not scratches on film (my first choice), they're some artifact of the data collection/transmission/display.

I certainly see nothing that remotely resembles any sort of "structure", other than those obviously placed there by us.

The brightness of an image is largely an editorial decision. Depending on the intended medium (print, Web, etc.), you may want to adjust contrast and brightness to suit the image. There is nothing sinister or suspicious about doing that.

Very few images reach you, that haven't been edited in some manner. That's standard practice.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by alienesque
 


There is a object sticking out of the ground , second picture from the bottom, labelled AS16-118-18957. I thought the object is missing in newer versions of the picture. Maybe i got it wrong, nevermind.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by chiron613
 


Totally agree. Well said.

I do wish people would stop making such preposterous claims until they have a bit of background knowledge and some good proof rather than baseless assumptions!



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Chiron613: 1

Everyone else: 0



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613

The brightness of an image is largely an editorial decision.


In some cases.

But I still require you to prove that was the case in this particular instance.

Do you have any external-source data which corroborates your theory?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


It's your claim, you prove it is what you say it is!

You're asking someone to prove a negative which is largely impossible.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenix103

You're asking someone to prove a negative which is largely impossible.


Wrong.

Although it will require some effort on chiron's behalf, I am not asking him to prove a negative.

*As to my proving that NASA altered the images. See the OP; Note the differences between the two largest images.


[edit on 29-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


You aren't asking me to prove anything..


I honestly can't see any difference other than in shading.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Perhaps Zorgon can post two images one shot from the recent lunar pass over showing the landing sites and similar pictures of lunar objects.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by tristar
Perhaps Zorgon can post two images one shot from the recent lunar pass over showing the landing sites and similar pictures of lunar objects.



If these 'objects' are actually scratches on a frontal projection screen, then there won't be any pictures of them from orbit.


Of course, nowadays we don't have to rely on Scotchlite screens:




And thanks to computer technology, we don't have to re-use Sets either:


Day One EVA




Day Two Eva 17 miles away..



Superimposed...


(Thanks for uploading the pics Zorgon!)

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Here's the Apollo 16 landing site as seen by the recent LROC pass over:



I see no structures and as far as I know these images haven't been 'retouched' either.

Full image: wms.lroc.asu.edu...


What say you [Exuberant]1?

[edit on 29/7/09 by Chadwickus]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


You can really make out the details in those images.... Proof at last.


What do you think of this one - Pretty conclusive huh?




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Well going by this image you provided:



These structures look pretty large, several times larger than the LM in fact...



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   
You have done it again OP excellent thread , there are so many ways you go with this, for instance airbrushing techniques used, various photos airbrushed/doctored to hide various structures, there are meny many videos on the subject and I believe MikeSingh provided some excellemnt info several months back.

It is an absolute unquestionable fact that NASA tamper with their photos in order to supress the truth that we are not alone in this universe I will have a search for a video that I found on the net that showed the structures on the moon/mars after tinkering with the photos.

To say that NASA is working in our best interest is going exactly against what this site is about. Deny Ignorance! open your eyes .

Edit found a video that contains the airbrushed structures along with commentary from actual witnesses.







[edit on 29-7-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


Thanks Fran!

If you would like to see some excellent example of NASA engaging in using the same footage and images multiple times, then have a look at this video by the acclaimed Apollo Researcher J. White:




Part 2 : www.youtube.com...

Part 3: www.youtube.com...

Have you seen the mini Sea of Tranquility that NASA made here on Earth?

Boom!:


The End Result:


Some of the craters were pretty big - maybe they came in handy later for other more discrete 'simulations':




*Compare it to the televised images of the moon that most of the public (at bottom) - It is quite convincing.:

(A majority people only got to see moon images televised in black and white or in newspapers which for the most part were of low quality. And getting books about the moon and with good images from the library was harder back then; they were always checked out - a testament to the popularity of the space race)


Earlier, I also mentioned to Triostar the possibility of the 'objects' being defects in a Scotchlite screen, precluding us from ever photographing them from orbit.

Just so you know; here is what Front Projection using a Scotchlite screen looks like:

(Scene from 2001 A Space Odessey. *Note: Some researchers have theorized that Kubrick may have been involved in the Hoaxing of the Moon Landings. Also, the filming of 2001 would have given the participants of the Hoax excellent plausible deniability if anyone ever saw them)





[edit on 29-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Then again, perhaps scratches were really 'there'; on the massive Scotchlite screen used by Kubrick to film the whole scene using Frontal projection.

So why don't you compare the scratches on two pictures showing the same background. If they match you will have actual proof. It shouldn't take more that a minute of work. Not that I'm asking you to do any actual research... better to ignore the facts, eh?



new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join