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: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree

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


Just because you've said that doesn't make it so!

None of you have ever proven anything in the 40 years since we went to the moon (or in the 35 or so since the first conspiracy theory surfaced).

It must be so frustrating to have to use such laughable techniques to try and brow beat people into believing the ludicrous claims that are being made!




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 


This is the manipulated image - Perhaps it has been altered to hide scratches:


Here is the altered Version of the Apollo 16 image we are discussing, notice the lack of those 'scratches'/objects in this version

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by derpif
 



There is a object sticking out of the ground , second picture from the bottom, labelled AS16-118-18957.


I'm puzzled by the reference number, there.

This is what I found when I searched for 'AS16-118-18957':



Look t ome like it was taken from Lunar orbit....?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Originally posted by Exuberant1


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!)


Once again, Exuberant1, you've done nothing more than show as a fool. By re-hashing this garbage, especially the rubbish alleging two different EVAs, with the same Lunar landscape, you're simply showing everyone that either you are delusional, or you think that we're too stupid to notice your deception. EVERYTHING you post is shown to have a valid reason for the so-called "anomalies".

STOP IT! You're embarrassing yourself. And worse yet, those who may not know any better could actually fall for your lies and twists.

Are you truly this daft? OR, do you enjoy playing a game, and pulling people's legs? Because, if you're just loose in the mountings, then we can forgive you. BUT, if you're doing this as a lark, for jollies, then that's another thing entirely.

ATS deserves better!!!



[edit on 29 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

That's the correct picture. But you need one with a better resolution. This evidence (of what ?) has been paraded many times. Without ever mentioning that the shadow of the "object" sticking out does not match the direction of the Sun.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
As to the "OP", and photo# AS16-109-17804

I invite the entire ATS audience to see that photo in context, here:

Project Apollo Image Gallery, Apollo 16, magazine G (109)

THEN let's see if the "OP" has a leg to stand on!

PS: Anyone ever seen a negative without scratches in the emulsion???

[edit on 29 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
This is the manipulated image - Perhaps it has been altered to hide scratches:


I recognize Zorgon's school of innuendo and mud slinging.
Thy master has taught you well, young apprentice.

Now be a good puppy and check whether your "structures" match between one picture and the next. That way you may actually claim you are doing research.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



Here's your image:


(image AS17-136-20767)


AND an unadulterated one:



Let's see them all:
Apollo Image Atlas, Apollo 17, magazine H



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by nablator

I recognize Zorgon's school of innuendo and mud slinging.
Thy master has taught you well, young apprentice.


I think Mini Me has a long way to go yet.

I'm still waiting for an answer on why it's not visible on the latest LROC images.

Maybe they moved house?

[edit on 29/7/09 by Chadwickus]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus

Maybe they moved house?

[edit on 29/7/09 by Chadwickus]


Apollo 20 were in charge of the clear up. Earlier Apollo missions were nothing but window shopping.

I don't suppose its possible that the first pictures shown with the 'artifacts' was one of the standard photos handed out by NASA, and the clean image was actually taken from the original negatives?
Just a thought



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I admit that I find the opening post a little confusing, so perhaps I have misunderstood something. But the OP seems to be claiming that the first and brightest version of the image AS16-109-17804 has been altered by NASA.

I clicked the link he provided, this one, and the adress tells me that you have found this image at Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.

Apollo Lunar Surface Journal was established in 1995, and the "Apollo 16 Image Library" was added in 1996:
www.hq.nasa.gov...


I also clicked the link to the darker version of the image, which you claim to be older than the image at Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, this one.

You seem to have found this image at a site called "spacearchive.net", a private site established by Davide De Martin around 2004. Davide De Martin also writes this about his image archive project:


SpaceArchive.net is always in search for new pictures not yet present on the archive so, if you are in possession of images that can't be found in SpaceArchive.net, do not hesitate to contact me or e-mail me a good scan accompanied with all available data for the image.

Many pictures were restored by me, restoring the original colors, enhancing the contrast, removing scrubs, scratches and dust maks. I hope that this work helps to remember in the best way the epic of space exploration and the men who were involved.

www.spacearchive.net...

Link to homepage of "spacearchive.net"
www.spacearchive.net...

It seems that it probably is the darker and newer version of the image which have been altered, not NASA's version. But please correct me if I am mistaken about where you found the darker image.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


Nice detective work ziggy!

IRM



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60

It seems that it probably is the darker and newer version of the image which have been altered, not NASA's version. But please correct me if I am mistaken about where you found the darker image.






It is the lighter image which has been 'cleaned up' - By someone...

The image from Spacearchive still has the scratches/objects visible above the horizon.

From what I have been able to determine, it is actually the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal which has made alterations.

As I have also located a version of the image at spaceflight.gov which also has the scratches - this appears to be the case.

*The version at SpaceArchive is the same version that is accessible at spaceflight.gov

Both have these unique anomalies present in them:


(This one is from Spacearchive)


[edit on 29-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
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.



This is REACHING but it looks as if almost in the background there are skinny tall trees and the scratches are there to cover them up and make them look all just like scratches...


O and that pole can not be from an KNOWN space mission as there is not enough room in any shuttle or lunar module to place it there and unpack it ...

Since it is bent is looks to not have been used in some time and therefore has been there for a while and somebody else , either us, or another species/race/aliens put that there long ago......



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

... it looks as if almost in the background there are skinny tall trees and the scratches are there to cover them up and make them look all just like scratches...



Excellent point!


Adding scratchmarks to the photo would be a good way concealing the true nature of the objects present within it - Especially if those objects were long, skinny poles. Increasing the brightness would help to hide these objects.

*Note the very first image in the OP. It has damage to the top left corner that is not present in the other versions of the image.

It is from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and its brightness level has been altered to that the scratches are no longer visible.

Maybe it is also a photo of a photo...:





[edit on 29-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

This is REACHING but it looks as if almost in the background there are skinny tall trees and the scratches are there to cover them up and make them look all just like scratches...


Yes, that is without a doubt an incredible reach. Do you realize how enormous those trees would have to be, as well as how skinny? If NASA was trying to cover up the existence of monstrous trees on the lunar surface do you think they'd simply scratch them out?

We know for a fact that scratches like this occur in photography, so we can roll with the most obvious, most likely answer that they are scratches... or go down the path that they could be used to cover up lunar trees. I know you may not have been seriously proposing that, but it feels like this is the logic that NASA debunkers want to use.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parabol
Yes, that is without a doubt an incredible reach. Do you realize how enormous those trees would have to be, as well as how skinny?


He was using skinny trees to describe what he was seeing.

That is why LucidDreamer said "looks like" and not "there are skinny trees"....



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
WOW, you've REEEALLLLYY got something here! Nasa cleaning up scratched photos!! Call the press! Front page news!!!!!!



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
When a photographer edits an image to correct errors, such as colors, scratches or dirt etc. it is not considered manipulation. In this case the correcting was made by a 3rd party.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I work and deal with scratches, dirt, water spots, etc on a daily basis in motion pictures, and would like to congratulate the OP on increasing the brightness to the point of exposing film issues and nothing more.

The rest of his claims are completely ridiculous as well.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join