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: 9
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MOTT the HOOPLE
Take a good look at the MRO photos of Phobos too see a photoshop substrate! There all painted fakes! There more Faker than Pamela Anderson's Boobs!




It would probably take an orbiter to fully map those moons and a team of NASA photo techs to airbrush them. She tried to go up another cup size but the government stepped in when they figured out it would create a gravity wave capable of throwing the Earth into a new orbit.




posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ecoparity

Originally posted by MOTT the HOOPLE
Take a good look at the MRO photos of Phobos too see a photoshop substrate! There all painted fakes! There more Faker than Pamela Anderson's Boobs!




It would probably take an orbiter to fully map those moons and a team of NASA photo techs to airbrush them. She tried to go up another cup size but the government stepped in when they figured out it would create a gravity wave capable of throwing the Earth into a new orbit.


and that would be a whole new thread


[edit on 19/9/2009 by ocker]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ecoparity
I guess where I differ from the skeptics on this is that I come out of it with a verdict of "inconclusive". I don't find the witness to be "unbelievable", her story has been consistent over time and though I have some issues with elements of it I was able to find that other elements might fit. Without being able to verify the security architecture and any programs under which keyhole imagery might have been sent to NASA I can't really reach a solid conclusion either way. As usual I've ended up with more questions in exchange for a few possible answers, a typical dilemma with UFO stories. If there was even one corroborating witness from NASA I'd feel much stronger about the case.


I don't think you differ all that much from me. It's the 'inconclusive' nature of so much of this testimony that's so darned frustrating.

What I think can be concluded about Hare's testimony is NOT that she was in any way a deliberate deceiver, but that she was extremely gullible of things other people told her, and did not know anough technical stuff to find factual objections to it -- e.g. her credulous repeat of the story that aliens helped Apollo-13 get back to Earth alive. Or it's possible she didn't understand stuff she overheard or saw (e.g., her claim that satellites could resolve the code numbers on golf balls, and did so for the 'Bay of Pigs' invasion -- when she meant the Cuban Missile Crisis).

And the argument is NOT that 'people who report UFO stories from inside the space program', as a class, all have character flaws (like being extremely credulous) BECAUSE they tell these stories --

The argument is that "some people who are extremely credulous" (a category that we know exists in large numbers) wind up telling UFO stories they heard about while inside the space program, BECAUSE they don't know any better.

Which, as I've argued before, is entirely understandable, explainable, and NOT evidence for real UFOs inside the space program.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Well said Jim.


I suppose this question could also be asked in Owsley thread, as it has to do with the ability of a nation to maintain a secret (and substantive) component of their space program and deals with an area with which you are particularly expert..... but we are here now, so here goes:

When did you become aware of the existence of soviet N-1 rocket? What year?

And if it is the same date as the general public was given, may I ask what year you first heard rumours about the N-1 rocket?




[edit on 19-9-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Sorry if this has been posted already. The best case I know of for air brushing or altering photo's is the Cydonia photo's of the 'Face on Mars'.

On April 6, 1998 Dr. Malin immediately released a distorted, low contrast image of the face to the international media (figure 1) and proclaimed that the "face was just a pile of rocks".

This raw image of the "Face" was distorted and so stretched out that it was immediately said to look more like a "sandal print or a stuffed chili pepper" than a face, by the New York Times.


More of the story at www.bibliotecapleyades.net...



[edit on 19-9-2009 by ByteChanger]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
There still is a strange looking thing on the bottom right of the blur.




posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
I don't think you differ all that much from me. It's the 'inconclusive' nature of so much of this testimony that's so darned frustrating.

What I think can be concluded about Hare's testimony is NOT that she was in any way a deliberate deceiver, but that she was extremely gullible of things other people told her, and did not know anough technical stuff to find factual objections to it -- e.g. her credulous repeat of the story that aliens helped Apollo-13 get back to Earth alive. Or it's possible she didn't understand stuff she overheard or saw (e.g., her claim that satellites could resolve the code numbers on golf balls, and did so for the 'Bay of Pigs' invasion -- when she meant the Cuban Missile Crisis).

And the argument is NOT that 'people who report UFO stories from inside the space program', as a class, all have character flaws (like being extremely credulous) BECAUSE they tell these stories --

The argument is that "some people who are extremely credulous" (a category that we know exists in large numbers) wind up telling UFO stories they heard about while inside the space program, BECAUSE they don't know any better.

Which, as I've argued before, is entirely understandable, explainable, and NOT evidence for real UFOs inside the space program.



Any imagery she might have seen from the Cuban Missile Crisis would almost certainly have been U2 or low-level / high speed photo recon, especially given the description of the level of detail. While the print on a golf ball thing would be an exaggeration the resolution from those platforms was higher in quality than people might expect, even looking at it half a century later. I think it's entirely possible she might have seen U2 footage and assumed it was from a satellite. The big "if" is still how to go about obtaining the corroboration.

U2 imagery from Cuban Missile Crisis:




As I've said, the reason I might still lean towards belief in these "inconclusive" (IMO) cases is because of my own beliefs about UFOs and government cover up of the evidence from cases where the witness(es) are at the very top of the scale in credibility, the evidence is very strong and /or we have a compelling amount of corroborating witnesses. Those cases effect my starting point in examining the less clear cases, obviously. My belief that there is an ongoing cover up in which NASA has and continues to participate at some level prevents me from dismissing Donna's and Gary's claims outright. I'd like to think that doesn't mean I'm holding a free for all , license to generate fiction when it comes to these things but the responsibility for that dilemma falls squarely on the shoulders of the government by reason of the decision to lie to the public and withhold taxpayer funded discoveries, again completely in my opinion, of course.

I still maintain that keyhole imagery would have fit her description but I can't really argue any assumption be made on that one due to the issues we previously covered. It would not be so impossible for NASA to have certain domestic keyhole imagery related to the program and the history of the U2 would almost certainly have resulted in NASA having test runs from the planes at a minimum.

I can't assume the security was limited based on previous experience with defense contractor locations which have no classification rating for the main facility yet have secret and above areas inside that same building. Some of the East Coast aircraft plants who hire foreign nationals are divided like swiss cheese inside with partitioned areas and "nofor" warning signs.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ByteChanger
Sorry if this has been posted already. The best case I know of for air brushing or altering photo's is the Cydonia photo's of the 'Face on Mars'.

On April 6, 1998 Dr. Malin immediately released a distorted, low contrast image of the face to the international media (figure 1) and proclaimed that the "face was just a pile of rocks".

This raw image of the "Face" was distorted and so stretched out that it was immediately said to look more like a "sandal print or a stuffed chili pepper" than a face, by the New York Times.


I read your source. I didn't see him or you present any evidence the image is airbrushed. The contrast is what it is, NASA admits they have edited contrast before but that's not airbrushing. Do you have any evidence it was airbrushed or are you just parroting what someone else told you?

It looks to me like the same region photographed from a different camera angle, and the sun was also at a different angle so the shadows will of course be different as a result.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
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...



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thanks for checking the source. Did you read this part?


A few hours after releasing the distorted, low contrast image known as the "cat box" to the international media, NASA posted a very different image of the MGS "Face" (SP1-22003) on their web site. (figure 1) This image had the distortion corrected and the contrast enhanced.


As for being a parrot, I seen an interesting article that seem relevant to this topic so I thought I would share it. I can't possible prove if NASA is air brushing, distorting, or withholding images. Heck, I can't say conclusively that these photos are from Mars even. Might be the Mohave desert for all I know...

I don't have the time to investigate this individual or pull NASA's photo's... I wouldn't even know where to start. So, yes, I am taking this persons word on a lot of it. Like I take your word that your read the source I posted.

I said it was the 'best case' I've heard of... I wasn't making any claims to have unequivocal evidence.



[edit on 19-9-2009 by ByteChanger]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I can give you a T H E O R Y as to why NASA may not be airbrushing out photos any more... However- this is just how I'd do it if I was running the zoo.


Take the photos. Run them thru an imager. Do a 3d rendering of the photo. Have a look at it. (or have software deal with looking at it). Anomalies? Rewrite information in that area, scrub out shadows, ect. Reprocess photo. Snicker when no one notices anything missing.

The reason for the 3d rending part is to make the stuff edited out and the replacement stuff fits in perfectly any way it's looked at. Basically, you're taking a photo of a 3d rendition of the photo that was originally taken, after careful editing and 'scrubbing' of the image.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ByteChanger
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thanks for checking the source. Did you read this part?


A few hours after releasing the distorted, low contrast image known as the "cat box" to the international media, NASA posted a very different image of the MGS "Face" (SP1-22003) on their web site. (figure 1) This image had the distortion corrected and the contrast enhanced.


Yes I read that part, and noted it says nothing about the airbrushing you mentioned.

It really didn't take much time doing a Google search to get a lot of clues about what happened:

spsr.utsi.edu...



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Yes I read that part, and noted it says nothing about the airbrushing you mentioned.


I was not specifically speaking of air brushing, I said air brushing or altering photos... You are obviously aware of the difference as you seem to be consistently misquoting me and claim I have been speaking only of 'air brushing'.

The source you provided had some interesting things to say...


Until MSSS (Malin Space Science Systems) releases full ancillary data regarding date and time of acquisition of the MGS picture, we can only guess as to time and angle of camera and the incident angle of lighting from the Sun.


So, you have no evidence either to prove your hypothesis about the sun's angle I guess?


Besides I'm not sure what your were referring to in your linked site? Could you be more specific? It looks like an article on if the 'face of mars' is artificial. Not so much a rebuttal on if NASA alters or air brushes their photos.

And interestingly,


The MOLA data substantiate the general characteristics of the optical view of the Face in Cydonia and therefore must be regarded as confirmation of the various elements of symmetry and facial features that have led planetary SETI investigators to postulate that it may be an ancient, eroded, but deliberately sculpted landform on Mars, evidence of activity by some intelligent beings


Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read.




[edit on 19-9-2009 by ByteChanger]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ByteChanger
 

You can make certain observations about the angle of the sun just by looking at a photograph. You may not be able to determine the exact angle, but it's pretty easy to tell if the illumination is coming from the left or the right, or if the angle of illumination is shallow or steep. The evidence speaks for itself in that regard, just look at the angle and length of the shadows.

The catbox photo and the later photo with distortion"removed" are both mentioned in that article. I'm not sure either image is free of what you might call "distortion".

The catbox photo was not an overhead view, so I think the angled view is what the author of your source is calling a "distortion". Apparently a subsequent image released was an attempt to translate that catbox image into something more like an overhead view, as the link I cited shows. that image may actually have more distortion in it than the original image, and the link explains why, so I'm not sure the conclusion that "the distortion was removed" is a correct conclusion.

Yes I thought that site was an interesting read too. It tries to objectively look at the evidence and explain why the images may look different due to logical explanations without implying that NASA is doing some kind of image manipulation to keep the truth from us. And there's certainly plenty of photographic evidence released for you to examine.

I never said the feature wasn't interesting, it's very interesting, I only find claims of some kind of coverup by NASA to be dubious.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You can make certain observations about the angle of the sun just by looking at a photograph. You may not be able to determine the exact angle, but it's pretty easy to tell if the illumination is coming from the left or the right, or if the angle of illumination is shallow or steep. The evidence speaks for itself in that regard, just look at the angle and length of the shadows.


This is a NAVY Clementine image from the color data set...

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

And ArMap... bite your tongue
Let someone else have a go





posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ByteChanger




I like our version of that area much better

Compliments of Keith Laney




[edit on 19-9-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You can make certain observations about the angle of the sun just by looking at a photograph. You may not be able to determine the exact angle, but it's pretty easy to tell if the illumination is coming from the left or the right, or if the angle of illumination is shallow or steep. The evidence speaks for itself in that regard, just look at the angle and length of the shadows.


This is a NAVY Clementine image from the color data set...

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

And ArMap... bite your tongue
Let someone else have a go


What are the coordinates? This looks like it might be a composite image.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Here's an example of a composite image on the earth. The angle of the sun varies depending on which part of the composite photo you look at. It's composed of separate images stitched together in Google Earth.



My guess is something like this might be going on in the moon photo you posted.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ByteChanger
 

You can make certain observations about the angle of the sun just by looking at a photograph. You may not be able to determine the exact angle, but it's pretty easy to tell if the illumination is coming from the left or the right, or if the angle of illumination is shallow or steep. The evidence speaks for itself in that regard, just look at the angle and length of the shadows.

Fair enough and I'm sure your right... but I'm sure there could be unknown factors skewing those observations (only an eclipse of some kind comes to mind). Not probable, or likely, but possible.


The catbox photo was not an overhead view, so I think the angled view is what the author of your source is calling a "distortion".


Ok... again ya got me there. I read "distorted and so stretched out" as both being acts of 'altering an image', but yes, you are right, distorted could refer to the angle... But 'stretched out' was the really important part.



It tries to objectively look at the evidence and explain why the images may look different due to logical explanations without implying that NASA is doing some kind of image manipulation to keep the truth from us.


Ok, but I still didn't see any of the 'altered' 'catbox' pictures there... just references... and a mirrored east side photo...



I never said the feature wasn't interesting, it's very interesting, I only find claims of some kind of coverup by NASA to be dubious.


I would never have thought it either. Even w/ the face on mars... I always thought 'it was just a pile of rocks' but like you said, interesting nonetheless.
(It was just that I've heard about the possible alterations of the picture that I thought made it worthy of a mention here...)

But then I watch The NASA Secret Transmissions or some such show when they show you NASA changing camera angles to cause flares and snowy pictures where the snows appears to be turned on & off... or even the tether incident... where they have a great picture, and then they mess it all up and zoom in on some obscure thing... and then 'control' says 'great picture' ...


... Some of it seems odd ...

Anyway, had a fun debate with you, you made some good points.

but my head is starting to hurt...



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join