Fake "Star Field?" in STS-106 - NASA Manipulation Evident

reply to post by Anjaba


I don't think those are stars. They're more likely hot pixels

Another reason I don't believe they are stars is that they are perfect little dots. There is no motion blur on any of them, but there is on the space station itself.

I changed the title to better represent what is being put forth. Regardless of whether the dots are stars or CCD Artifact/Hot Pixels it is clear that a duplicate of one section was pasted over another portion of the picture for whatever reason. Unless of course CCD Artifact is known to manifest in exact tiled patterns...

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Anjaba]

reply to post by Anjaba

Well then you end up with the same old problem.

Why on Earth bother with intentionally covering something up when you can just not publish the image at all?

It's not like it's a spectacular image. It's not like anyone would have known it was "missing".

reply to post by Phage


I am qualified to answer that question just as much as you are Phage, we just really don't know and possibly never will. I still think that regardless of NASA's motive for the manipulation, the manipulation still exists. What if an object is present in all frames during STS-106, and they decided not to post ANY pictures, wouldn't that be a bit strange?

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Anjaba]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Anjaba]

reply to post by Phage


Double Post

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Anjaba]

reply to post by Gigantea Rosa


It's an obvious use of the photoshop clone brush. The reason why you see that one star as slightly dimmer (which I also saw) is actually because of the clone brush. That indicates it was used at a less than 100% flow rate. Probably at like 60% and the user didn't go over the spot for long enough for it to fully draw. The brightest of the stars will likely be the original. '

I'm a photographer with extensive knowledge and use of photoshop.

Why they did it?? I have no idea. But it has been published. And there is absolutely no doubt that the clone brush was used to manipulate the photograph.

Speculation? Covering up a top secret military craft that was in the shot, or for the more conspiratorial among us, perhaps an alien craft. I have no idea why they wouldn't spend the extra 30 seconds needed to do it right though.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by pirhanna]

reply to post by pirhanna

That website is the public relations branch of NASA. There are examples of cosmetic retouching on other images posted there.

The spots don't show except at full resolution so whoever did it really wasn't too concerned. It could have been a fingerprint on the reticle, or a 10km space ship.

Originally posted by pirhanna
Why they did it?? I have no idea. But it has been published. And there is absolutely no doubt that the clone brush was used to manipulate the photograph.

Speculation? Covering up a top secret military craft that was in the shot, or for the more conspiratorial among us, perhaps an alien craft. I have no idea why they wouldn't spend the extra 30 seconds needed to do it right though.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by pirhanna]

Pirhanna, I also have photoshop experience and am inclined to agree and I asked myself the same question, why get sloppy? To me, it stinks of someone who has to do a lot of this, clone-stamping random stars (if they are stars) on space pictures all day....but maybe I'm just feeding the conspiracy flame here.

reply to post by Phage


It doesn't seem that fingerprints/glares or whatever else you can think of is worrying their editing team much. Oh wait, I forgot you mentioned another ship, although I think 10km is probably a stretch.




[edit on 27-4-2010 by Anjaba]

Originally posted by pirhanna
Why they did it?? I have no idea. But it has been published. And there is absolutely no doubt that the clone brush was used to manipulate the photograph.

Speculation? Covering up a top secret military craft that was in the shot, or for the more conspiratorial among us, perhaps an alien craft. I have no idea why they wouldn't spend the extra 30 seconds needed to do it right though.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by pirhanna]

What is conspiratorial about an "alien" craft?

They are real, and millions now believe that as fact.

Despite all the efforts of that nay-saying "sage" Phage.

ummmm not to be too techy.

but has anyone bothered to check the exif header data for the linked image?

Someone should post that to their forums and look into this. It may reveal the information you are looking for.

For those that dont know what an exif header is, use your google!!! I love learning and exif is something we should all know about. Since it can be used to track an image to its originating source.

I have extensive knowledge of PS, as it is what I do for a living, graphic artist..

I can tell you..if this would have been a small mistake..such as a finger print..they wouldnt have needed a huge copy/paste layer...something as simple as a black soft pen to cover up a small area..or a small clone area.. the area is question is quite large that has been duplicated..

Also..it isnt a "sloppy" job to a lay-man...the general public would NEVER know the difference..great eye, OP

reply to post by pirhanna


Ah okay Star for you and thanks. Not a big photoshop person and wasn't sure. Though the 'smudges' that were visible were just something in the image. Anyway thanks for clearing that up.

reply to post by Yummy Freelunch

This is an image taken with a camera of what is seen through the COAS. The COAS is a collimating device which projects a virtual image for the astronaut to assist in navigation. Sort of a HUD. A fingerprint or other smudge on the glass through which the image is taken would appear reasonably large.

The device is visible here. The picture in question was taken through that little piece of glass:


Cloning is a quick and dirty way to fix something on a black field.

[edit on 4/27/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Anjaba


Before you jump to any conclusions re stars in the picture you need a few details.What are the exposure details of this picture

Shutter speed, film/sensor rating and also the aperture.

If you dont have those details you cant claim anything!

reply to post by wmd_2008


First, I am only relaying information that caught my attention. I thought other people would find it interesting. Even though I didn't find the anomaly myself, I agree it is alarming.

Second, regardless of exposure time and whether they are actually stars or artifact doesn't matter. What matters is that it was clearly manipulated by NASA prior to posting on their site.. Exposure time and whether the objects in the frame are stars or CCD artifact would not affect the validity of the clone tool being used, a decent sized portion of the image was in fact replaced.

Originally posted by Anjaba
reply to post by [davinci]

 

I agree about the sea launch possibilities, the pacific ocean is a vast area easily capable of hiding a facility.. With all the underground volcanoes and barely submerged islands/atolls It wouldn't be hard to build a hidden facility just 20ft below the surface for such things.. They can hollow out a mountain above ground, who's to say they can't do it just below the surface.

WOW Thunderbirds are real then eh! No disrespect but yes the Pacific is large but what about air traffic, ships, various inhabited islands all over the Pacific then of course radio telescopes dotted round the world.

The problem is you guys get way to excited about the possibilites used to be like that myself when I was about 10-13 yrs old that makes you ignore the more mundane and more likely resaons for things like this.

Thats why you need as much info as possible re photographs consider this on a photograph exposed to show the space station which is sunlit stars wont show on the picture the exposure time is to short ANY photographer knows that NASA knows that Mars Anomoly Research DONT it seems.

If they wanted to hide anything they wouldn't show you the picture

So to cover a smudge/finger print etc a simple fix like that is all thats needed, I bet NASA and others get a great at how people like thelivingmoon and Mars Anomoly Research react to pictures like this,its like school boys seeing their fist P**N mag

I've seen many star fields that look similar to me because I'm not an astronomer. Just because they look similar doesn't mean that it has been "photoshopped". I've noticed many similar patterns in some Hubble images and yeah more than once I thought that can't be real.

I don't believe there is anything funny going on here. Either we have a similar pattern or it's an artifact of the instruments as Phage has suggested. It's only 5 object we're talking about here, I bet somebody can find other similar duplicates if they tried.

To the OP or anybody that has the time. If that's what you believe perhaps you need to find out the exact timing of the footage and then find out where STS-106 was at the time of the disputed image. Then take a look at that part of the sky in other images and see if you can line up the images in order to prove or disprove the wild NASA cover-up speculation.

reply to post by wmd_2008


While checking the original picture i found two other areas with cloned "stars".

Lower left quadrant, see here:



if you cut and overlap the layers, the stars are a perfect match.

(I boosted the levels so colors are weird but after you know where to look it's clear also in the original picture)

As for the reason, no idea...