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 Employed Photo Artists to Airbrush Lunar Anomolies

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Former NASA employee, Donna Hare, reveals how NASA managed to cover up and erase anomalies such as UFOs from satellite photos.

Donna Hare has spent most of her professional life involved in the Space Program as a technical illustrator. She drew lunar maps, landing slides and worked in the photo lab, Precision Slide Lab. Her job was to reduce art work to one inch by one inch drawings. She drew launch sites, landing sites and was employed as a sub-contractor to NASA for over 15 years.

Donna Hare was interviewed on Washington D.C. Radio Station....


Keith Morgan: Stan, what she said was that she was in the photo lab at NASA and that she was looking at some photos and one showed an elliptical, white object that was casting a shadow on the ground above some trees and the technician in there, she asked him if it was a UFO? He said "I can't tell you." She said what are you going to do with this kind of information? He said "Well that is the kind of stuff that we airbrush out."

S. McD: Oh I see, thanks for that!

E.D.: So Donna that's approximately, essentially correct what you said, right?

D.T.: Right!


Source



Kinda reminds me of this...



After nasa airbrushed it a little bit...



Looks like theres nothing there right nasa?




posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I watched a video of her telling that story and I don't think she's making the story up.

Even if everything she said about that conversation is the absolute truth, I can't rule out the possibility that the guy she was talking to was pulling her leg. It raises a lot of questions like, he couldn't tell her what it was because he didn't know what it was? Or he knew but he wasn't allowed to say for security reasons? But he was allowed to tell her they airbrushed them out?

So far every claim I've seen of an airbrushed photo by NASA has been some kind of scam.

It seems like someone should be able to come up with a real smoking gun if they are really doing that.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I was going to post a related YouTube video but alas, it was banned. Atleast you can see the editing in the pictures.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I will never buy the ludicrous airbrush theory. Why in the hell would NASA airbrush certain photos and then release them? Are you kidding me? Why would they need to do that? EVER? You just you know.. DON'T release those few photos that would have anomalies. Not hire someone to try to airbrush them in an obvious way and then release them.

"HMmm... this photo has an ALIEN in it! What should we do?!"

"Well, we could just you know... hide it.. lock it away.. destroy it. It's just a few rocks and an alien after all, no one will miss it."

"No, that's ridiculous, I think we should have a professional artist airbrush it instead, and then we can release it to the public! Otherwise they might realize we didn't release ALL photos of moonrocks."

It makes absolutely no sense. Out of what was it.. 5771 photos... they really felt the need to release them all? And airbrush out ufos, domes and aliens? I'm thinking not.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by fleabit]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


If they destroy the photos then people will start asking why they destroyed them.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Chovy
 

Maybe but it's easy to make up technical reasons why photos got lost, or destroyed.

Now that we are getting LRO shots which duplicate previously imaged areas, we can evaluate if the same "artifacts" appear in the same areas or not in a different set of photographs.

So far the only evidence I've seen of NASA image editing is adjusting brightness, contrast, and color balance which are pretty standard photographic editing procedures, and they are a far cry from airbrushing.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


A NASA employee admits she airbrushed photos and still you deny a conspiracy. I can't help you man.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Chovy
 


Please provide a quote in which Hare says she airbrushed NASA photographs.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
At first glance, it looks to be some Clementine image browser 1.5, which is well known for this type of "anomalies": the matter has been discussed so many times that it's no longer worthy to be discussed anymore. But in case i'm wrong, then i'd like to know the source.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Yeah I don't think she ever actually said she airbrushed any photos

Just that she had seen some of them and were told they airbrush them before making them public.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
The video has been banned, oddly enough, but I will try and find more evidence.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Chovy
 


Please provide a quote in which Hare says she airbrushed NASA photographs.


That would be useful, all this is some guy who said that she said this.

I would like to see an actual interview with Donna Hare stating this.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Chovy
 

You don't mean this do you? Because she just says the same thing; "this guy told me this".

Just like a "few" of the other Disclosure Project "witnesses".

[edit on 9/15/2009 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Chovy
 


Please provide a quote in which Hare says she airbrushed NASA photographs.


my pleasure...


She said what are you going to do with this kind of information? He said "Well that is the kind of stuff that we airbrush out."



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Chovy
 


She was quoting some unknown guy. She never said she airbrushed anything.
But she does enjoy the applause. Doesn't she?

[edit on 9/15/2009 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I must say that lady sounded very reliable.

She had a low security clearance, but was able to access restricted areas and see secret photos.




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


She had access to restricted areas for 15 years. Imagine all the crazy things she seen.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   
I'd like to express here my opinion regarding NASA (or any other organization making scientific photos and releasing to the public) tampering their photos.

I've said this in another topic, but it seems very appropiatte also here, so i will make a CTL+C and CTRL-V action:


I agree that NASA many times modify its photos.

But i didn't agree of the reason of doing it, the conspiracious reason.
Tampering the static images is a common proces.
Do you really expect that some images to be EXACTLY RAW images? You know, RAW images may have all kind of artifacts, or not so good brightness/gamma/contrast.

I will explain that: also i tamper my images (not all, but ussually some of them):


When, many years ago, i began to "digitalise" some of my precious photos on paper, from chemical films, using a scanner and a PC.

Guess what i did..i tampered the images:
- i modified gamma, contrast, brightness, colors or hue
- i removed using clone tool, the scratches, developing errors (white/dark patches)
- i used masks to raise/low brightness on zones (sky, overexposed areas)
- i cropped the 0....255 interval of brightness variations in the low part (dark areas), for example let's say as an example to 10...250, automatically (autocontrast) or manually (dark level threshold), to increase contrast and remove darky noisy ugly areas



In this days, using digital photography, i also tamper some of the images (the very important ones):
- i modified gamma, contrast, brightness, colors or hue
- i removed using clone tool, the non-desired things, like bugs, electrical strings when deteriorating the atmosphere of the image etcetera
- i remove red-eyes
- i used masks to raise/low brightness on zones (sky, overexposed/underexposed areas)
- i cropped the 0....255 interval of brightness variations in the low part (dark areas), for example let's say as an example to 10...250, automatically (autocontrast) or manually (dark level threshold), to increase contrast and remove darky noisy ugly areas
- i remove noise in high iso images (which also could make the human skin to appear smooth like baby skin, which i don't want, so i have to pay attention, or to use masks to operate only on zones (ussually the sky, where the noise is more obviously)
- i remove/reduce chromatic aberations, fringe or contaminations (like the sun/moon/bright areas false halo
- i remove dead pixels (hot pixels) when they spoil the image.
- various other tamperings.

A detailed analysys of those my photos can show easy that those images where tampered.

My reason? To make perfect images from where is not. Am I lying/hiding something in my images? Well, i could say yes, but with a noble reason.

I thing NASA just doing the same with their RAW data when publishing to the world. Nothing more. Also they stitch images and also make projections, scallings, using monochrome spectrum wavelenghts and compose images from them etcetera.

I bet many people didn't know this normal tampering processes, and they could send me to jail because i tampering my images, if this was very important to them (i lie to them, no?)






[edit on 15/9/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Chovy
 


Yeah, but thats not the crazy part.

The crazy part is that she saw all of this with a low level security clearance.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
The only thing I know is this.... I bought a copy of the UK Sunday Times some years ago which had a feature on Mars in it and inside was a double page picture of the Martian landscape from some lander or other. OK not the moon but...

I was just looking at it and then I noticed that certain rock formations had been repeated. If I remember there were about 4 sets of rocks that had been cut'n'pasted into other areas of the picture. Now this was before I thought anything about AboveTopsecret etc. It wasn't as if the rocks in question were far away and someone had helpfully done the dead to remove picture artifacts. It did strike me as very odd at the time. I don't have the picture anymore, but a search of back issues of the Sunday Times should be able to track it down.

All respect to Phage, but I came to the conclusion that "this was a crock of...." without any prompting, so Moon tampering would not surprise me.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join