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

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 

Actually it didn't take too long to find it. I just searched ATS for "spacearchive.net" when I found the original website no longer existed (I had it bookmarked because those images frequently arise).

There are probably a few more than a single case of altered images from NASA. The Public Affairs Office (the PR branch) does "prettify" images for public consumption but the original, unaltered images are available to those who bother to look for them.

The journey starts with real research rather than finding a youtube video and running with it.


[edit on 2/22/2010 by Phage]




posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
There are probably a few more than a single case of altered images from NASA. The Public Affairs Office (the PR branch) does "prettify" images for public consumption but the original, unaltered images are available to those who bother to look for them.


Its not a question of bother to look for them, thats for a different thread, I am concluding that it is very possible for NASA to alter images if they so desire. Since 'they' have admitted that they have altered them in some way (for whatever reason) this conclusion is just.

The common ground is that nobody can say that NASA does not alter their images, as we have evidence/proof that shows they do, whether it be 1 image or 1000 images the fact remains and that is NASA (if they wanted to) could do whatever they want to the images, whether it be prettify or intentional cover something up, before the image is released to the public.

Reading ArMaPs explanations I whole heartedly agree that the video I posted in the OP could very well be a fake, nonetheless I believe that this thread has shown us that we cannot be right all of the time, and even the most stubborn sceptic has to agree this surely?



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 

Yes.
NASA (if they wanted to) could do whatever they want to their images.
Including not making them public in the first place. Why bother "covering something up" by altering an incriminating image and risking being exposed?

If it takes a single thread to demonstrate that we cannot be right all of the time, great. I figured that out a long time ago, before I ever knew about ATS.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage]
If it takes a single thread to demonstrate that we cannot be right all of the time, great. I figured that out a long time ago, before I ever knew about ATS.


You and I Phage but the majority of members on this site will write post after post and never admit that they could be wrong.

Edit: just noticed you have an admirer every post you make someone flags it.Shame they don't seem it necessary to participate.

[edit on 22-2-2010 by franspeakfree]



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Anyhow, as you chose to avoid answering my earlier question I shall pose it again and slightly differently:

How would you remove a spy satellite or hardware relating to national security from Apollo images in a manner which provides a plausible and believable rational for your alterations?

In fact, he did answer your question.

It was you that avoided seeing (or absorbing) his answer, probably because you know it completely refutes every iota of what you're getting at here.

You "remove the spy sattelite" from the image by removing the entire image itself.

That was his answer, and that's the absolute best way to do it in terms of national security.

Harte



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
The "explanations" or rationals for NASA photos anomalies have never been credible. The "explanations" appeal to the weak minds and manipulators. There are dozens and dozens of serious and real anomalies. "Smoking guns" are real and all over the place. Don't be fooled or intimidated with the idea they don't amount to anything. They clearly show extensive lies and manipulations. Exactly why the where done as they where is a mystery.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
The problem i have with the bad analysis done by these anomoly experts is that according to them there are NO pictures of the moon that were not changed to cover something up. That is just dumb. I can find a patch of dirt in my backyard snap a pic that would pass as a picture taken in the african desert. Yet NASA could not manage to take pictures that left out all the alien ruins and artifacts? All the NASA covered things up stuff is crap, if they were taken in a studio then there is no alien crap to be covered up. If they were taken on the moon they could have found small areas to take pictures of that had nothing in it.
Funny thing is that when people provide "evidence" of NASA faking moon photos and alien artifacts on the moon they all use the same pictures.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Well here is a photo very clearly manipulated on NASA's Human Space Flight Web Gallery for you to cast you eyes over.

Link to thumbnail and description
Link to hi-res JPG
Image S69-40308

It is the deployment of the flag from the first lunar landing mission (Apollo 11 of course). It shows very obvious 'cloning repetition' to anyone who is familiar with using the Photoshop 'clone' tool. Heavy repetition above Aldrin and some above Armstrong too. The cloning is so bad you can even see it on the thumbnail!

One could argue that it was perhaps to remove dust and scratches, however there are dust and scratches all over this image that have not been removed.

There is a corresponding video to this image on the same site that doesn't show anything untoward in the same areas, just a bit strange that this area of the photo was 're-touched' and not the rest. Perhaps that area was particularly bad on the photo??

Very amateurish work if you ask me.

File hashes for hi-res JPG
CRC32: 2E1C5E4A
MD5: AA96F005960FAF0E48FE0AD1016BDC4F
SHA-1: 5BACF09AE500F4433BB2E24C0191691859A18E2D

[edit on 22-2-2010 by DrBunsen]



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DrBunsen
 

Yes, it looks like they removed something from that photo, and if they did then I think I did a better job.


Edit: but I think it's just a bad photo showing the footprints of the astronaut.

Edit 2: to post a link to the video from where that image was taken and to a better version of another frame.


[edit on 22/2/2010 by ArMaP]

[edit on 22/2/2010 by ArMaP]



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DrBunsen
 

The image is a single frame from the DAC camera, a 16mm movie camera. One would not expect a very high quality image but it can clearly be seen that those are footprints.

You can see them being made here by Buzz as he sets up the solar wind collector.
history.nasa.gov...


aaaaaannnnnd. All of this is completely redundant.

[edit on 2/22/2010 by Phage]



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
There are footprints there, but I can tell you with certainty that there is manipulative cloning there also. There is pixel doubling, areas repeated, exact pixels are duplicated, even the same specks of dust are repeated in some spots.

I've been re-touching images for 16 years (news media) and can spot bad cloning from a hundred paces


[edit on 22-2-2010 by DrBunsen]



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DrBunsen
 

In the video? Every frame? Wow, I can't see it but if you say so.

Here's a very similar angle taken with a 70mm Hasselblad. Except for the much better quality, it looks pretty much the same.



[edit on 2/22/2010 by Phage]


jra

posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by DrBunsen
 

In the video? Every frame? Wow, I can't see it but if you say so.


No I think DrBunsen is just referring to that one frame alone. I see it too. Look at the foot path between the astronauts and the TV camera, in the area where the path 'loops'. I see some duplicated spots as well as a couple of missing rocks. Here's an untouched version to compare. S69-40308

It seems like an odd edit to do. I don't see anything in the untouched image that would be worth editing for aesthetic reasons.


Originally posted by franspeakfree
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.


Generally when people talk about NASA altering images, they're talking about alien bases, mining operations or signs of a hoax being covered up. That I don't agree with. But if you're talking about some editing to 'prettify' an image for PR reasons, then yes NASA does alter there images. But just about every magazine or web based media that deals with photos are guilty of this too.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 



But just about every magazine or web based media that deals with photos are guilty of this too.


As if anyone thinks that jennifer Anniston actually looks like her photos, when seen in real life!!!


Sorry, couldn't resist....



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 

I see it now. I was looking for signs of hiding something rather than aesthetics. It looks like the alterations were made to change the aspect ratio of the image.



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by DrBunsen
 

In the video? Every frame? Wow, I can't see it but if you say so...


Oops, I wasn't clear, yes I did mean the original image I posted, not the video.

Whatever NASA's reasons for the manipulation of that particular image, I think we can agree it's a bit of a shoddy job and wasn't done to cover up a discarded Alien frisbee!



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

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?


Sure, and the episode is online so you can watch it yourself in case I don't accurately represent what they said.

It's the Gemini 4 incident which you wrote an article about here:

www.jamesoberg.com...

Your article states "He remains of the mind that he saw some unidentified but still man-made piece of orbital debris." The UFO hunters claim, while consistent with the "man-made" part of that statement, goes a step further.

UFO Hunters claims "McDivitt believes he may have accidentally photographed a secret defense satellite" and NASA only released one photo and one still frame of his footage and didn't release the other images he took, and "He maintains the released picture is not what he saw". The Gemini 4 part of the segment starts right about 7 minutes into part 1 of 5 in this episode:

UFO Hunters NASA episode

In any case whether McDivitt photographed a secret defense satellite or not, if some astronaut did that, I could understand why NASA wouldn't release the photos.

But if you can shed some light on whether UFO hunters is misrepresenting McDivitt or not, that would be interesting to know.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by DrBunsen
 

I don't see why they did it, unless they added something before and had to remove it.




posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


I would say that picture distinctly shows some type of metalic craft, was this a real picture if it was that's interesting.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by menguard]



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Why do you all immediatly go to "they're hiding something" argument? They released pictures and made them as visually pleasing as they could. The light from the stars could have come across as visual "white noise" so it was removed. The only thing that this proves is that photoshop was a great program that they didn't have back then.

You all are so keen to find a conspiracy that you're starting to grasp at straws here. I see nothing to suggest anything more nefarious than artistic descretion. They wanted a focal point in the picture and removed anything that would distract the viewer from that main focal point.

There are thousands of photographs of the cosmos with all the little twinkling lights out there for you to see. Look at those and stop looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by KILL_DOGG]





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join