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 Image Tampering Videos, Lies or Truth?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ocker
 

No, she didn't witnessed it, she witnessed someone saying that, it didn't witnessed the action being done.




posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
interesting photo armap.

some more please..

ive always believed man walked on the moon .. but never believed they filmed it.

ive looked over the years many many times at all there is to look at to arrive at my conclusion and i am satisfied with that conclusion.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by ocker
 

No, she didn't witnessed it, she witnessed someone saying that, it didn't witnessed the action being done.


WELL I will give you the full transcript of a interview ArMap since you want to keep this bit of trivia going that I posted to someone else

for the second time thats what I said she witnessed it first hand.

I have found a copy of thee interview and here you go

Right, a round shadow! And I noticed that there were pine trees, now I don't know where this area was or what, you, pretty close to the ground what I saw but I didn't see outline of the continent. But I did notice that there was shadow under this white dot and I also noticed that the trees were casting the shadows in the same direction as this shadow of the circle of this aerial phenomena because it was higher than the trees but not too much higher than the trees but it was close to the ground and it was spherical but slightly elongated, not very much but slightly. I then said, is it a UFO? And he said, "Well I can't tell you." And then I asked him, "What are you going to do with this piece of information?" And he said, "Well we have to airbrush these things out before we sell these photographs to the public." So I realized at that point that there is a procedure setup to take care of this type of information from the public.


www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

I never once said she did do it or seen it

Ill be more punctual next time. Strange that you thought I was trying to say something that she didn't do when her interview is available on dozens of web sites.



[edit on 11/10/2009 by ocker]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ocker
 

Yes, that's the same thing I saw her saying on a video, I guess my interpretation of "she witnessed this first hand" was not the right one, I thought you were saying that she had witnessed the airbrushing.

Sorry for that.


Back to topic.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Hi ArMaP!

Thank you for sharing your photo. May I ask how did you get that result? Did you use photoshop?



Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
No one has yet proven anything nefarious by NASA and lunar photographs as far as airbrushing alien structures or any sign of alien activity on the moon. Yes, the video and some photos show what may be tampering but nothing else.


I have been trying to search for these lunar photographs too from the NASA website to see if there are really signs of airbrushing. So far no luck! Where are the sources that these people are getting their photographs!!


[edit on 11-10-2009 by balon0]

[edit on 11-10-2009 by balon0]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by balon0
 

Yes, I used Photoshop, more specifically the "Replace Color" tool.

By selecting a pixel from the sky and changing it's colour you can then change the "Fuzziness" value to select more or less colours. It's a very useful technique that I saw in one of those videos showing the altered images.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
you should check this.......

go to.... www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

use the following values....

Desired Resolution (Current: 1 pixel = 1 kilometer)
Image size in pixels: 768x768
Latitude: 68
Longitude: 346

leave the sensor box at the default UVVIS and the filter box at 415_nm

click on the "Use Lat/Long" button.........

there you have it....




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
i have heard before that ACT with their ACT-REACT, WIPE and PIPE
is the one and only official third party image handler for nasa ever since....

www.actgate.com...

can anybody confirm this?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
go to.... www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

use the following values....

Desired Resolution (Current: 1 pixel = 1 kilometer)
Image size in pixels: 768x768

leave the sensor box at the default UVVIS and the filter box at 415_nm

click on the "Use Lat/Long" button.........


and also check these values.....

Latitude: -35 (not 35)
Longitude: 208




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 



WOW & WOW! Thanks people!



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
The video is right, the way I was looking for the tampering was wrong.

That image in the link provided by Phage, for example, and other NASA sites show that same effect, as we can see below.
(click for full size, although not the original full size, the original is too big for ATS)


www.hq.nasa.gov...




so in your opinion ArMaP what does this mean ?

is it proof or evidence that the photo has been altered ?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by nomadros
 


cheers
....... also check this.....






posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
and how about 'double craters'.....





posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


To me is a clear evidence that points to the use of some tool to copy pieces of the sky over other areas of the sky. The fact that the shapes are repeated perfectly makes me think of a digital alteration of the image.

But that is clearly a sign of alteration, I can't think of anything natural on a photo to make it look like that.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
you should check this.......

go to.... www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...
No, you should check the updated version of the Clementine Image Browser and not the one that became obsolete years ago.

Instead of that address you can (and should) use this one.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
you should check this.......

go to.... www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

use the following values....

Desired Resolution (Current: 1 pixel = 1 kilometer)
Image size in pixels: 768x768
Latitude: 68
Longitude: 346

leave the sensor box at the default UVVIS and the filter box at 415_nm

click on the "Use Lat/Long" button.........

there you have it....



Nothing there that hasn't been pointed out a million times! Remedy? Don't bother with CLIB images.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



To me is a clear evidence that points to the use of some tool to copy pieces of the sky over other areas of the sky. The fact that the shapes are repeated perfectly makes me think of a digital alteration of the image.

But that is clearly a sign of alteration, I can't think of anything natural on a photo to make it look like that.



thanks ArMaP , and good job on that


i wish i had photoshop to work on these pics myself. all i have is a simple paint program called paint.net and from what i can tell it doesn't have the color replacement tool/function. couple months ago you sent me a link to a program called gimp for browsing the new LRO images but my computer for some reason didn't like it and i erased it.



if you get some spare time can you take a look at these images using the same method you did on the AS17-134-20382HR ? no rush on that as i am sure your busy , but like i said if you get some spare time check it out and let me know. thanks







[edit on 12-10-2009 by easynow]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 

I didn't saw anything interesting in those photo, but you can try it for yourself with Paint.Net, if you have good computer (it's very slow on large images).

Choose the wand tool, select something like 5% tolerance (you can play with that value latter) and the "Global" flood mode, then choose one of the dark pixels on the sky. The result is the same as in what I did with Photoshop.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 


I've read about the crosshair anomalies before.


Here is a web page that tries to explain the disappearing cross-hair (near the bottom of the page)

Apollo Moon Photos: a Hoax?

Here's one that explains why cross-hairs are not centered and rotated

The Apollo Moon Hoax

Theres also links there to many other evidence of the Apollo Moon Hoax.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
did you frankly watch that clip?

as you can notice..... it has nothing to do with any of the so called 'moon hoax theories'.... but rather about the obvious image tampering of nasa...

from the link which you provided....



Crosshair Knockout

FOX narrator: "For reference, crosshairs were permanently etched into the lunar cameras, so they would have to appear on top of every image. But in this photo, a crosshair is behind a part of the lunar rover." David Percy then opines: "This situation is impossible and has to be the result of technical manipulation and doctoring of the image." Clue: in each example FOX showed of an object appearing to be over a crosshair, the obtrusive object was sunlit and bright white, such as these examples:


Question: why do crosshairs vanish over sunlit white objects?

Answer: strong luminosity can washout thin lines.

Test: hair across lens is washed out by sunlit white paper.
With no atmosphere on the Moon, sunlight is stronger.

In this test a strand of hair was taped across a camcorder lens, which was then pointed at a sunlit white paper. While my test failed to vanish the hair-line completely, it demonstrates that diffuse solar reflection on a white surface can wash out a thin line. This result is sufficient to render the phenomenon of crosshair vanishing over sunlit white objects not anomalous. Also reflective intensity and thus crosshair-knockout potential would be greater on the Moon with no atmosphere to reduce solar intensity.


this is absolutely irrelevant...... since the main focus of the discussion is the 'false horizons'..... anyways i dont know to what extent the a/m claim is accurate or has been double-checked for consistency..... regardless of whatever the situation might be.... it still contradicts itself; in light of the presented argument.... i.e. the crosshairs in the 'false horizons' are "wiped" whilst being on the darkest backdrop.... whereas the existing ones are quite distinct on a well lit lunar surface.....


moreover... i guess that whole experiment is flawed.... since they used tape to stick the 'hair' onto the lens.... which obviously would distort the focal point in the first place.... thus creating a hazy shot....

cheers



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join