Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Have You Ever Wondered Where The Stars Went? Proof that NASA has altered their images

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   


Firstly, how do you know NASA is responsible for this tampering?


Sorry for my lack of involvement I have a few things going on at the moment.

Firstly I wanted to first address the quote above:

This is a common quote that I come across nearly everyday and when I speak to people about this subject out of ATS I get the same response, which is "How do you know what you read on the internet is true", this is all very easy to say in order to move the subject along, but come on people, is that really an answer? thats like saying, everything on the internet can't be trusted. Yet its ok for the very same people to switch to CNN and read all the articles as if they are the gospel.

None of us can pick and choose what we want to hear, we all need to embrace everything in order to form a conclusion. I used to pick bits here and bits there, but in the end its impossible to make a that conclusion.

I started this thread asking this question CAN WE ALL AGREE THAT NASA ALTERS THEIR IMAGES

I don't want to hear 99.9999999999999999% of the time the armchair enthusiasts are wrong, if thats the case then there is the .1% that everyone must agree on?. Therefore, the conclusion would de that yes they do alter their images.

When we can all agree that NASA has interfered with their images we can then move on to the reason why? we can talk all day about how NASA can't be trusted but at the moment I want us all to agree on the facts.

Thoughts anyone?

[edit on 21-2-2010 by franspeakfree]




posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
I don't know much about the LPI but if it is a science based endeavor I don't think they'd be covering something up.


I have highlighted words on your reply, not as a strawman argument but as a point to say that this is what I am talking about, none of us are experts of everything therefore, its impossible for us to know for sure of anything, which is why it would be quite foolish to say otherwise,

I am not directing all of this at you, I am trying to say that because none of us have first hand informaton, we can only base out conclusions on videos, witnesses and testimonies. When a sceptical person comes on this site and says that NASA would never lie to us, how does he/she know? surely it would be wiser to keep an open mind about all of this? otherwise any avenue of exploring is automatically shut down.



Editing a photo does not denote intent, we cannot attach sinister malicious intentions just because a few photos are cropped, recolored, or tweaked slightly and we certainly need not assume massive cover-ups about aliens.


We can if it is found to be hiding something, after all we have to ask why would they be trying to edit an image in the first place? One example would be the upside down horizon, yhy would NASA deliberately try to confuse the viewer of the image but placing
the horizon upside down?.

Instead of closing our eyes these are questions that we all have to ask in order to gain a better insight.


[edit on 21-2-2010 by franspeakfree]



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
I hate the government;
They lie to us about EVERYTHING!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DjSharperimage
I hate the government;
They lie to us about EVERYTHING!!!!!!


NASA is an agency of the government, however, IMHO the government i.e presidents circle, doesn't have as much control over this agency as they make out. Care to elaborate about why you think they lie and perhaps give us a few examples that you know?



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
////UFO hunters did a segment on what NASA is hiding and they gave an example where some "UFO" pictures vanished and NASA never released them at all, and that was the reason given for a possible explanation, makes sense to me. And it's a lot easier for them to just make the photos disappear than to try to doctor them.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]


Can you give more details of that TV program's claims, please?



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
How would you remove a spy satellite from NASA images in a manner which provides a plausible and believable rational for your alterations?

That gave me an idea, so I tried to remove something from an Apollo photo.

This is the result of some 45 minutes with Photoshop, and I didn't even knew what tools to use.


(click for full size)


This is the original photo
(click for full size)


Its easier to do this digitally, but it's also possible to do with the original negative.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim, thanks for popping in, a very long time since we last made contact and I am pleased that I can pick your brains.

Can I ask you two simple question to which I would very much like a yes or no answer please:

Have you have any first hand experiences that demonstrate that NASA alter their images before they go public. i.e through conversation at NASA or seen for yourself?

Ifso do you believe that NASA may have some reason as to altering them?



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


First of all thankyou for your time and effort to show us how easy it is to photoshop an image. As you seem to be the man who onducts the experiments, would it be possible to do the same sort of thing with the images in the first video, i.e change the hue saturation and see if there is any discrepancy with the original? is that possible.

I am not trying to catch you out or anything like that, I just think it would be a good idea if we looked at these things using yourself an experience subject matter expert and your tools and knowledge at your disposal,

If there are no discrepancies then we know the images in the you tube video have been altered with by the poster and we can disregard the video and look for something else.

Edit: I wanted to add that we can now see how easy it is for something to be photoshopped so we can say without doubt that anyone can alter images without too much of a problem.

So surely now we can all accept that it is a possibility that NASA could change the image if they wanted to using the exact tools that ArMaP has used.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by franspeakfree]



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 

It's the second time I do an image alteration in Photoshop, but the first time I did it with a NASA photo (the first time I did it with a photo that I took). In both occasions I applied all the techniques I know to try to find any alterations to see if I had done a good enough job.

Some of the photos used in the video from the Opening Post have been altered and are available on the Internet, some on NASA sites, some on private sites, and that adds another layer of complexity to the image alteration problem: the fact that an image is seen on the Internet doesn't mean that that image looked like that in its original source.

Photo AS15-91-12343, the first on that video, is a good example.


That tampered image can be found on Keith Laney's site. But it can also be found here, a NASA site, while the version available here doesn't show any of those signs.

Why would NASA have one version in one site and another version in another site? And why didn't Keith Laney used the better version?

These things are all related to the problem brought by the "digital revolution", anyone can make copies of digital images, anyone can distribute and publish them, and some time later nobody knows what was the first version of that image.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by franspeakfree
 

It's the second time I do an image alteration in Photoshop, but the first time I did it with a NASA photo (the first time I did it with a photo that I took). In both occasions I applied all the techniques I know to try to find any alterations to see if I had done a good enough job.

Some of the photos used in the video from the Opening Post have been altered and are available on the Internet, some on NASA sites, some on private sites, and that adds another layer of complexity to the image alteration problem: the fact that an image is seen on the Internet doesn't mean that that image looked like that in its original source.

Photo AS15-91-12343, the first on that video, is a good example.


That tampered image can be found on Keith Laney's site. But it can also be found here, a NASA site, while the version available here doesn't show any of those signs.

Why would NASA have one version in one site and another version in another site? And why didn't Keith Laney used the better version?

These things are all related to the problem brought by the "digital revolution", anyone can make copies of digital images, anyone can distribute and publish them, and some time later nobody knows what was the first version of that image.


The second one isn't a photo, that is a drawing. You can tell if you look at it long enough and notice the coloring configuration and the details. It is looks very artificial to me. It reminds me of a very detailed landscape.

living-landscape-screensaver.smartcode.com...

www.realisticdrawing.com...

www.steveworks4you.com...

These are both landscape drawings, but if you notice the second one uses the same fundamental aspects that can be noticed in that supposed "second photo" you have provided. It is not a photo, it is a landscape of the Earth.

Maybe we should call it a spacescape, since it is depicting Earth from space. LOL!

[Edited]

On a serious note, I should point out that if you really want to know if something is genuinely a photograph, you should examine the detailed quality of it to see if it was actually made using a digital camera. If you don't find those trace marking qualities, then it is just a very realistically made drawing.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by Dranigus]



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dranigus
The second one isn't a photo, that is a drawing. You can tell if you look at it long enough and notice the coloring configuration and the details. It is looks very artificial to me. It reminds me of a very detailed landscape.
You can ask for and download the large version of that photo. Look at that instead of the smaller version and tell me if you have the same feeling that this one is a drawing.


living-landscape-screensaver.smartcode.com...

www.realisticdrawing.com...

www.steveworks4you.com...
The firs looks obviously false, the second is too small to say if it's a photo or a drawing and the third looks more like a collage of several photos.

I see that you removed the one you had posted before as being a drawing.



On a serious note, I should point out that if you really want to know if something is genuinely a photograph, you should examine the detailed quality of it to see if it was actually made using a digital camera. If you don't find those trace marking qualities, then it is just a very realistically made drawing.
Who said anything about digital cameras? There weren't any digital cameras on the Apollo missions, those photos are all "old style", chemical, real objects, converted to a digital format to be seen on the Internet.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Dranigus
The second one isn't a photo, that is a drawing. You can tell if you look at it long enough and notice the coloring configuration and the details. It is looks very artificial to me. It reminds me of a very detailed landscape.
You can ask for and download the large version of that photo. Look at that instead of the smaller version and tell me if you have the same feeling that this one is a drawing.


Increasing it size isn't going to change the fact that someone used a Corel Drawing program. Go ahead and show me.





living-landscape-screensaver.smartcode.com...

www.realisticdrawing.com...

www.steveworks4you.com...
The firs looks obviously false, the second is too small to say if it's a photo or a drawing and the third looks more like a collage of several photos.


They are all drawings. You can go on each respected website and they'll tell you they are all drawings.

You have to apply a little research in what you do. You can't just rationalize things without adding a bit of background research.




I see that you removed the one you had posted before as being a drawing.


Nah. I started getting a warning from the guy who made it and I acted accordingly since I didn't want to get in trouble. Is there a problem with that?





On a serious note, I should point out that if you really want to know if something is genuinely a photograph, you should examine the detailed quality of it to see if it was actually made using a digital camera. If you don't find those trace marking qualities, then it is just a very realistically made drawing.
Who said anything about digital cameras? There weren't any digital cameras on the Apollo missions, those photos are all "old style", chemical, real objects, converted to a digital format to be seen on the Internet.


You should listen to yourself when you type and see words you use that don't make any sense in the format you are using them in.

Using an old style of photography?

gadgetophilia.com...

LOL! You mean like this one?

[edit on 21-2-2010 by Dranigus]



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dranigus
Increasing it size isn't going to change the fact that someone used a Corel Drawing program. Go ahead and show me.
That other image is not increased in size, the image on the page I posted is a smaller version of that bigger image, not the opposite.


They are all drawings. You can go on each respected website and they'll tell you they are all drawings.
The first one is obviously a drawing, I didn't meant to say that the second is not a drawing, I just said that it's too small to know for sure just by looking at it, and the third, just because the site says "In these drawings" it doesn't mean they are drawings, as you can see the original is a photo, that was also used on the composition you posted, he just added some more things to the photo and made some alterations, but that doesn't make it a drawing, in the same way the image I changed is not a drawing, it's a photo that was altered by me.

Almost all programs used to do landscaping have the possibility of using a photo as the background for the final composition, with the changes that the person wants to make.


You have to apply a little research in what you do. You can't just rationalize things without adding a bit of background research.
Sure, I only we all do the same thing.



Nah. I started getting a warning from the guy who made it and I acted accordingly since I didn't want to get in trouble. Is there a problem with that?
Not at all, we should always respect the copyright owners, even if it's an image found on public journal without any copyright notice.

You did the right thing.



You should listen to yourself when you type and see words you use that don't make any sense in the format you are using them in.
I listened carefully, but I could only ear the sounds made by the keyboard.



Using an old style of photography?
I used "old style" when compared to digital (you wrote "to see if it was actually made using a digital camera"), I thought that everybody would understand what I meant, but I guess I should have been clearer.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Increasing it size isn't going to change the fact that someone used a Corel Drawing program. Go ahead and show me. That other image is not increased in size, the image on the page I posted is a smaller version of that bigger image, not the opposite.

Hmm... cute. I didn't say you did the opposite. I am just saying that if you posted a smaller version, then let me see this larger version you keep talking about.




The first one is obviously a drawing, I didn't meant to say that the second is not a drawing, I just said that it's too small to know for sure just by looking at it, and the third, just because the site says "In these drawings" it doesn't mean they are drawings, as you can see the original is a photo, that was also used on the composition you posted, he just added some more things to the photo and made some alterations, but that doesn't make it a drawing, in the same way the image I changed is not a drawing, it's a photo that was altered by me.


You are making yourself sound confusing and it is getting harder to understand you.



Almost all programs used to do landscaping have the possibility of using a photo as the background for the final composition, with the changes that the person wants to make.


Yeah... sure... it does.




You have to apply a little research in what you do. You can't just rationalize things without adding a bit of background research.
Sure, I only we all do the same thing.


Grammar check please.





Nah. I started getting a warning from the guy who made it and I acted accordingly since I didn't want to get in trouble. Is there a problem with that?
Not at all, we should always respect the copyright owners, even if it's an image found on public journal without any copyright notice.

You did the right thing.


I did? Well, why thank you.




You should listen to yourself when you type and see words you use that don't make any sense in the format you are using them in.
I listened carefully, but I could only ear the sounds made by the keyboard.



Well then if you are blind, which I assume that you are implying, then you really cannot tell if something is a photo or a drawing.




Using an old style of photography?
I used "old style" when compared to digital (you wrote "to see if it was actually made using a digital camera"), I thought that everybody would understand what I meant, but I guess I should have been clearer.


You should have been clearer how there could be a difference between two photos made by the same astronauts, since both photos say they are from Apollo 15. And I am quite certain they were using digital cameras on the Apollo Moon missions. 1971 is when the Apollo 15 went into outer space. Digital Photography was introduced in 1961 by Eugene F. Lally.


It was titled, "Mosaic Guidance for Interplanetary Travel" presented at the annual convention of the American Rocket Society, 1961. .... This was the first presentation of a digital photography concept and digital camera.


The first image you provided that was clearly cropped or altered was clearly made using a digital camera.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

And as noted it was made by the crew of Apollo 15.

But as you look at the other photograph you can tell a remarkable difference.

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

And yet if you go down to captions it also states that it was made by Apollo 15. However, it doesn't look like it was made by a digital camera and yet I clearly pointed out that they had digital cameras back then and the other was clearly made using a digital camera.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by Dranigus]



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Hmm... cute. I didn't say you did the opposite. I am just saying that if you posted a smaller version, then let me see this larger version you keep talking about.
OK, use this link, but the image will be removed after some hours, if you (or anyone else) wants to see that photo again then just go to this page, click the "Request" link and follow the instructions.


You are making yourself sound confusing and it is getting harder to understand you.
Sorry, English is not my "mother tongue" and I never had English classes, so my sentences sometimes (or all the time) are a little confusing.


Grammar check please.
I lost a word, "hope".


The sentence should have been "Sure, I only hope we all do the same thing."


Well then if you are blind, which I assume that you are implying, then you really cannot tell if something is a photo or a drawing.
No, I am not implying that I'm blind, obviously, it was only a poor attempt at humour, regarding your "You should listen to yourself when you type".

As for not making sense, sorry, it would be much easier if I could write in Portuguese, but the Terms & Conditions forbid it.


You should have been clearer how there could be a difference between two photos made by the same astronauts, since both photos say they are from Apollo 15.
"Both photos"? It's only one photo, photo AS15-91-12343, or did I made another mistake that I didn't noticed?


And I am quite certain they were using digital cameras on the Apollo Moon missions. 1971 is when the Apollo 15 went into outer space. Digital Photography was introduced in 1961 by Eugene F. Lally.
The cameras used were mostly modified Hasselblad film cameras, based on a commercially available model, they were not digital cameras.

The fact that digital cameras were created before that doesn't mean that they would use them, they preferred the known system instead of the new.


The first image you provided that was clearly cropped or altered was clearly made using a digital camera.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

And as noted it was made by the crew of Apollo 15.

But as you look at the other photograph you can tell a remarkable difference.

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

And yet if you go down to captions it also states that it was made by Apollo 15. However, it doesn't look like it was made by a digital camera and yet I clearly pointed out that they had digital cameras back then and the other was clearly made using a digital camera.
OK, now I understand what you mean by "both photos", but that is the same photo.

If you scroll the page a little you will see a section called "Imaging Information", where it says: "Instrument Resolution (pixels): Film Type - 70 mm".

The difference is that the image from the first link has much more contrast than the one from the second link, but from what I have seen from both (and many other) sites, that second link has the best versions of the Apollo photos, too bad they don't have all of the photos. Also, the image is rotated 180º, although I cannot know which one was rotated.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   










instead of watching mtv or american idol or reality shows you need to watch stuff like natinal geographic,discovery,and history channel then people wouldnt have to post video of all the stuff being debunked you could have already seen it on tv

the reason why the stars dont show up is because the camera focuses on the surrounding light like your eyeballs if you were standing on the moon you wouldnt see the stars either your eyes couldnt adjust the bright light from the sun reflecting off the moons surface along with the stars above you! stand udner a street light and try to see the stars! just watch the program i put on here!

[edit on 21-2-2010 by metalholic]


jra

posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
When we can all agree that NASA has interfered with their images we can then move on to the reason why? we can talk all day about how NASA can't be trusted but at the moment I want us all to agree on the facts.


Well clearly we all can't agree that NASA edits there photos, at least not for sinister reasons. And the only facts I see in this thread are that stars are too faint to show up in photos set to regular day time exposure settings. Which answers the question in the title of this thread. But you seem to be ignoring that.

I posted a link to an official NASA site in my previous post that contained the first image that was in the video you originally presented. It didn't show any signs of editing like what was shown in the video. I find it interesting that the creator of that video doesn't say where he got his photos from. We have to take his word that they are directly from NASA.


What I find amusing is that, out of the four sites I use for Apollo photography, the two official NASA sites have little to no editing done to them. Where as the two privately run sites clearly have edited photos. (And by edited I mean basic contrast and colour corrections).

Here are links to the four sites I use.

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (official)
LPI (official)
Project Apollo Archive (private)
The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (private)


So surely now we can all accept that it is a possibility that NASA could change the image if they wanted to using the exact tools that ArMaP has used.


Except there is one minor problem. There was no such thing as digital image manipulation back in the '60s and '70s. And some one correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe the Apollo photography has been publicly available to anyone since the '70s.

So sure, it's possible that NASA could change the images if they wanted to, but they would have had to wait till some time in the '90s to do it. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have all the photos publicly available for 30 years and then to suddenly 'cover up' or 'hide' things later on. And I see no evidence of NASA doing anything like that either.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Happy Anniversary.
Why post exactly the same video you posted here last year?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As was pointed out there, the images in the video came from a site called spacearchive.net, a private site (no longer existant). The owner of the site made scans from photographs and "cleaned" them.

Nabulator:



The Italian owner of spacearchive.net, Davide De Martin writes: 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. Source: www.spacearchive.net... Great work, Davide, congrats for making originals look fake!


[edit on 2/21/2010 by Phage]



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Muchas gracias, I had truely forgotten about that thread (of course you must have spent a while looking for it) However, I am pleased you did link to that thread as this is I believe I am finding the answer I was looking for.

Behold a quote from that thread:



I have seen at least one photo that was altered by NASA, but it was not to hide anything (it was an ATS member that found discovered it, and NASA corrected the photo after that), it was a greyscale Moon with a colour Earth above, probably to show the Moon as a more dead world than it really looks.

In this case, in the photos I saw (only the first four from the video), there was nothing hidden, like nablator said, those photos are available on several NASA sites, anyone can see.


Now this is interesting. because we can now say with conviction that NASA has altered at least one image that we know. So now we can all agree that it is feasible to suggest that NASA have the capabilities and insight to change/alter their images.

This is the common ground I was looking for, we can all say NASA this NASA that but in truth none of us can know for sure. Yes it is very possible that the videos on youtube,discover channel, add weight towards debunking the conspiracy theorists, but we can also say for sure that on at least one occasion that we know NASA has altered an image. "Whats the big deal" I hear you cry.

The big deal is that there are people on this site that defend NASA to the hilt and have suggested that NASA would never alter their images we now know that 'they' have at least once. Therefore, the conclusion would be that

We have found the common ground that we can all start our own journey.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join