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: 10
20
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

I like our version of that area much better



Yes, I have to agree. That is a lot better image.

I especially like the image that shows the pupils, nostrils teeth and stuff...I haven't seen that in awhile.




posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
So basically, no prosaic hypothesis, or any counterargument to non-prosaic interpretations, will ever be credible to you. OK, thanks, now we know where are prospects are...


When it comes to issues like this where one has to make a judgment call either you evaluate the data and input of others and come to your own conclusions or you allow someone else to do your thinking for you. (Such as accepting the opinion of someone you respect or who's logic you trust more than your own).

Everyone comes in with a baseline based on past history, prior experience, culture and prejudices. Anyone who claims otherwise is deluding themselves, IMO. My UFO / ET baseline is that these things are real and for whatever reason we Earthlings are like the Safari Park animals in this Universe. (Studied and managed with an illusion of not being studied and managed while the pack leaders cooperate with the park rangers). This doesn't mean I believe everything / everyone when it comes to the subject, I think I've shown some critical thinking even to the point of giving you a more solid argument against Donna Hare's story (if I assume you hadn't already come by it previously). There are plenty of stories out there I've concluded are pure fiction, this just isn't one of them.

I agree with you that Donna was probably victimized on some things by people who wanted to impress her or were playing a joke on her but on the subject of the photos I believe she did see what she claims to have seen and was told what she's related.



[edit on 19-9-2009 by ecoparity]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Chovy
That's evidence for me.


Chovy, it remains only a 'claim'. It becomes evidence when you confirm that such imagery exists -- images showing trees and their shadows, as Hare described -- from any picture NASA released commercially in that period.

Everyone who has confidently promised to find such an example has failed.

Everyone.

Do you want to promise to find one?

It would be very significant if you did. Please try it.



I issued a similar challenge in an issue of FATE magazine back in the early 1980s and I'm also still waiting. Talk about patience!


[edit on 19-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NLDelta9
There still is a strange looking thing on the bottom right of the blur.



There are too many similar images and all one can think of, logically, is that they are digital glitches and not someone actually doing real lousy airbrushing. All you need are old images of the same area to see what's behind each of those glitches.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Edlogically, is that they are digital glitches


Well glitches don't usually have shadows





Its from the same image with the 'airbrushed towers'




posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Skeptical Edlogically, is that they are digital glitches


Well glitches don't usually have shadows





Its from the same image with the 'airbrushed towers'



And for a counter-argument you include a cropped photo showing a white, formless blob and you sound like you think that the blackness is below this white blob while the blackness has a definite shape.

From what I see the white blob doesn't have any connection to the blackness and the white blob seems to be a short distance from the blackness and the blob could simply be high albedo.

When supplying "evidence" it is best to include verifying information. If I had the lunar mission number and the photo number I could possibly look it up in my NASA pictorial volumes or even on the web. Do better.


[edit on 19-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 





Please tell me which way the sun is shining on this image...


Right to left. Where the shadows are funky, it's a hill or rise.

I'm so smart.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
I'm taking it that we're agreed that no NASA photos showing trees and their shadows ever existed in the time period Hare claims she saw one, right? And that no released NASA ground photos of that era, not one, ever showed such trees and shadows?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Maybe she is NASA Disinfo


She certainly has done a good job of insinuating herself into the "Disclosure Project" - but then anyone with a fun story can do that.


What a detriment that 'project' is...



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm taking it that we're agreed that no NASA photos showing trees and their shadows ever existed in the time period Hare claims she saw one, right? And that no released NASA ground photos of that era, not one, ever showed such trees and shadows?


The best I can tell the photo incident took place between 1970-71. That would rule out landsat as the source if the time period is correct.

I feel that I've demonstrated the keyhole imagery from that time period has visible trees and shadows. As of this minute keyhole is the only space platform I can find as a source for that time period without access to the test imagery from some of the other manned and unmanned orbiters leading up to 1971. (Space to Earth recon cameras and other devices were tested on a number of the Mercury and Apollo vehicles, for example).

The parameters of the test are a bit subjective however. She did not link the commercial photos to the sat photo she described specifically. If my goal is to work out if it's possible for such a photo to exist at all I have to admit that it is possible despite misgivings I might have about keyhole imagery being in the same storage as photos destined for public release.

If we were talking about somewhere other than NASA the placement of keyhole images would be more of an issue for me. I can come up with several valid reasons for those images to be there and based on my own experiences I cannot rule it out from a classified materials handling perspective.

I cannot determine if that scenario is correct without clarification. This is one of those things which frustrate the crap out of me. Why can't "researchers" in ufology do a proper job of interviewing subjects?

If her clarification responses described a specific scenario my level of "belief" in her story would suffer greatly. I think you know what that exact response would be and even though everyone else probably does too I won't write it publicly. Even though it's a bit too late to clarify those points you never know how in tune with public discussion of the case the involved parties might be. I wouldn't mind having the chance to ask her a few questions.

In brief, my opinion is that for the sat photo story to be real the imagery would have to be sourced from keyhole or U2 or other aerial recon platforms all of which bring security issues into play which greatly complicate the story. Lastly, the disclosure project folks could have done a much better job of interviewing her but we can say that about all of the project participants. I think they looked for any semblance of credible position and skipped right over any form of investigation of people's claims other than maybe seeing if there was a corroborating witness or document, items which were usually provided by the participants rather than obtained via investigation.

There are some very compelling stories and participants but in a few cases it looks like they just looked for someone who could tell a good story with a straight face and performed little or no due diligence.


[edit on 20-9-2009 by ecoparity]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Okay My post is FTW

Check a video called "The dark side of the moon"
Show hows Stanly kubric was involved, very informative.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Chovy
 


you never do know what they are capable of.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
weird - cross post from another thread . . .

[edit on 21-9-2009 by ecoparity]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by internos

Originally posted by Chovy
reply to post by jd140
 


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

All in all the evidences presented so far are a crock mate: did she take some nice picture or are we supposed to chat about those poor guys who made the first job on Clementine? Do you think that they were so desperate to hire someone unable to retouch the stuff in some way that you CANNOT notice? I ask for some proof, where is it? Come on, start from PROOF # 1, we are all here waiting from it.


Internos, don't you think that your response sounds a bit unfair? You are making a straw man/red herring fallacy when you ask about NASA's desperation to hire incompetent fools to cover up anomalies.

You know that wasn't the point of this thread. Give the person a break. Not to mention, demanding proof just really makes it look like you are already 100% decided on the issue, and are just angry over this situation.

Now, I also agree that the woman IS certifying that she was witness to third party information. Damning if true, but I can't pay my bills with that, now can I? I have seen the entire recording in which she appears, and she is not even close to being a heavy hitter (compared to other witnesses) in terms of credibility, security clearance, the organization (NASA might not be the best group to ferret secrets out of), and not to mention the information provided.

Most tended to lean to personal experiences and were using their professional credibility to help build a case for disclosure. She adds to the pile and seems honest, but all it does is help curdle my stomach to think it true.

I am not taking sides here, but screaming for proof helps no one. Why bother when you know it couldn't be provided in the way you demand? Even if there are non-airbrushed originals of the moon that did prove beyond a shadow of a doubt of what could be there (and what is alluded to), most skeptics wouldn't believe. Not to mention, if there is such a massive conspiracy to hide mile wide ships and artifacts on the moon, anyone stupid enough to steal or acquire such pictures would have a very short life span.

Unless people from other dimensions show up and point out what is really happening, how would you get such proof. All I know is that a lot of moon photos have a lot of smudges that could be almost anything.

P.S.
Moon Rising 2 shows one of those filtered anomalies that does look ship like after basic photographic processing, and why they would try to say there is a 13 mile long entity changing the engines is why a barrel of salt is a great thing to have handy in these situations. I can believe NASA is dishonest and capable of perpetuating such a lie, but logic has to fit in somewhere.

Yeesh.

Ok, I'm done.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by KingAtlas
Okay My post is FTW

Check a video called "The dark side of the moon"
Show hows Stanly kubric was involved, very informative.


You are aware that this "mockumentary" is a joke, right? Like This is Spinal Tap or Zelig? There are several clues, then the director gave away the show with the blooper-reel at the end.

The director wanted to make a statement about the ability of documentaries to sway the opinions of gullible people.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 

Just a bit of backup (even though it is wiki)
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery

Originally posted by KingAtlas
Okay My post is FTW

Check a video called "The dark side of the moon"
Show hows Stanly kubric was involved, very informative.


You are aware that this "mockumentary" is a joke, right? Like This is Spinal Tap or Zelig? There are several clues, then the director gave away the show with the blooper-reel at the end.

The director wanted to make a statement about the ability of documentaries to sway the opinions of gullible people.


When I read that, I had to download that film and watch it, as I'd never seen it before!

That film is interesting with heavy hitters like Alexander Haig, Donald Rumsfeld, and Henry Kissinger "explaining what happened".

Even before the credits roll, there should be some clues even for believers, like this statement:

"One of them killed himself cleaning his revolver. We kept the body for the kids to play with." Then they show the picture of the body! (fake looking as it is).

But I guess if you get up to go to the bathroom when the credits start rolling at the end like I often do, and you miss the credits, it may not be so obvious to some people that it's a mockumentary (especially to some of our more gullible friends on ATS who seem overly willing to believe all kinds of nonsense). Maybe in addition to the moon landing hoax, some people believe that the guy kept the dead body of the CIA agent for his kids to play with!
Could these be the same people believing that NASA is airbrushing photos?

But now I'm wondering if I should be watching the credits at the end of the movie (which I usually don't do).



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
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.

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]


The photos of the moon have already been put together to form virtual moon that people can zoom in on and explore - google moon. It would be extremely suspicious for large sections of it to be blank for no apparent reason. It's a much better policy to edit the photos and laugh off airbrushing accusations by saying there were computer errors in processing the image data.

There are scientists who spend their entire career studying the moon. They are certainly going to notice when the same sections of it are removed from every probe ever sent there to take pictures.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   




scientists..... they are chasing imaginary carrots.....

LunarTransient Phenomena (LTP) have been reported for at least 450 years. The events range from bright flashes, to reddish or bluish glows, to obscurations. Gaseous spectra and photometric measurements of the events have been obtained. Several theories have been offered as explanations for LTP, including residual volcanic activity or outgassing, bombardment by energetic particles, and piezoelectric effects. As the first set of digital multispectral images of the entire Moon, the Clementine data offer a unique opportunity to couple inferences of compositional relationships with lunar geomorphology in the regions of LTP. We have selected 11 regions from which numerous reliable historical reports of LTP exist. Our analysis of the Clementine multispectral images shows that many events occur in regions of bright, spectrally reddish deposits, which may be characteristic of volcanic ejecta. The events may be associated with outgassing of volatiles collected in or beneath mare basalt flows. Wefind that LTP tend to occur near the edges of maria, in agreement with a suggestion originally made by Cameron (1972. Icarus 16, 339–387), and in other regions of crustal weakness. We also find that some of the reported events tend to be in craters with rims of distinctly different (bluer) composition. This compositional difference may result from recent slumping of the rim, accompanied by the appearance of fresher underlying material. In some cases, slumping may be triggered by the release of pockets of volatiles; in turn the slumping events may cause additional pockets of trapped material to be released. There are four instances in which Clementine multispectral images were acquired both before and after an event that was reported by a terrestrial team of amateur astronomers mobilized to observe the Moon during the mapping phase of Clementine. None of these four sets of images shows clear changes that could be attributed to the reported LTP.

Lunar Transient Phenomena (1.18 mb pdf)
trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov...

can you feel it?.........



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join