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.

 

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

page: 4
43
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
That image is defiantly photo shopped,

you can see perfectly where the clone tools bin at.

Good find




posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
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.


Hot pixels don't happen in identical patterns like that. And why in the hell they should have motion blur?

Fast lens + fast shutter + high ISO = 1/8000th or less (in this case) pristinely frozen without any motion blur.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'm gonna do something a tad (stupid? Unbelievable?) interesting... and Somewhat disagree with you. *ducks*


I magnified the image to almost ridiculous sizes in Photoshop and looked around. I can see the Milky way faintly in the background, and the points of light all have 4 reflections at 4 points around them.

What I canNOT explain is the dupes- I abused the image as I usually do- no cuts, clones, pastes, or other obvious jiggery at all in the pic. I DID however find some solid pixels which I cannot explain (due to the fact I dont know what area on the shuttle this is shot, Brightness, ect.) I believe the solid white pixels are internal lights or camera artifacts, the ones that are diffuse are stars. Doesnt explain the 'stars' outside- unless there's something with built in camouflage. This is only my opinion, and I stand by blindfolded for the coming carnage (if any)


Sometimes, I just gotta wonder if Nasa doesn't release this stuff so people like us DO pull our hair out trying to figure out the weirdness...)



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by treesdancing
 


The patch tool leaves no visible traces of retouching.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Content aware wouldn't create a 1:1 copy since it uses a different algorithm for the image reconstruction.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Anjaba
 


perhaps it was an stereo pic?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
So why couldnt it be there just hiding some technology they dont want other countries knowing about. I mean after all these same countries can acess the same photo's as well.

Maybe its just "The Last Starfighter" waiting there to go into "Death Blossom" mode to take out that battlecruiser



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by theRoboZ
reply to post by dPD89
 


Last one then I will go to sleep. This is a simple test in photoshop just to show why it can still be cloning.



Pure black background then add a little noise 0,2%. On a separate layer i drew some 1 pixel pencil white dots, then some 3 pixel brush white dots, then i use clone tool on them with 100% opacity (still on the same layer). then save as jpg with 50% compression. Check the result. Not 100% identical pixels and different pixelization due to compression yet they were 100% clones on the original. Imagine if the background is more complex and opacity is less than 100%.

And if you still check the original area you can see a large part with repeating background in the 3 spots.

Can anyone tell me how to embed the image here? Or it's only possible if I upload to ATS (and i can't...)

goodnight!

Edit:

Thanx exuberant1 but i tired and still got the link to external image...


[edit on 27-4-2010 by theRoboZ]


Oh there's no doubt that it is cloned, but the question is whether it was purposefully cloned or whether it's an optical or technical glitch. If someone would go to the bother to change light intensity levels and noise levels, then surely they wouldn't do such an obvious clone job in photoshop. But then again, maybe that is exactly what they want us to think.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Sorry invalid post, already remarked by someone else before me....


[edit on 27-4-2010 by AquaTim84]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Even if they are just artifacts on the picture, it stills appears that they have been copypasta to cover something up.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by borachon
 


Has anyone considered the possibility that the 'sloppy' clone job, was an intentionally sloppy job?

Someone in the know, who may be leaving clues for us to find, but not so obvious to his/her superiors?

Could be a leak.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I'll look at it more closely with higher gamma and use GIMP to check it out a bit like some of you. Still don't see how it could just manifest in an exact pattern like that though
I'll examine it closely later tonight though. Also, I posted another example from the same album showing that they aren't worried about editing smudges/fingerprints so why this one? Keep checking it out though! Many ??s



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Very interesting... definitely appears shopped. But how long ago was this taken?

I ask because there was a post recently about the military's new secret plane (space plane) being lost soon after launch.

So could it be in the realm of possibility that what they've blocked out is actually that plane orbiting the ISS?

It kind of makes sense, if they tell us they lost it, then they can use it for whatever and not have to worry about any questions on the plane.
As if they worry anyway though.

Unless I'm mistaken about it being a space plane, in that case ATS has lied to me...



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I don't think it's unusual at all to find a little graphical cloning in images such as this.

My guess is that the image area in question contained, perhaps, a coordinate read-out generated as part of the docking maneuver — such a read-out may have contained sensitive data about the space station's exact altitude above Earth's surface, for example, which you would not necessarily wish to share with the general public (or hostile entities with orbital missile capabilities).

I don't think such cloning is "evidence" of anything extraterrestrial, but has more to do with the safety of the station itself.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by theRoboZ
The fact it is not pixel perfect everywhere is because, as already mentioned, they could've been cloned with different opacity so they got mixed with the original background, then the jpg compression (or re-compression) will also mangle it up.

Another interesting thing is the displacement of each cloned area is different and this makes me think it is hand made.
[edit on 27-4-2010 by theRoboZ]


Have you actually tried this, ie used the clone tool at low opacity, and watched what happens to the background noise? You get a softening/smearing of the noise, as the contrast edges overlap and 'average'. I don't have time right now, but I'll do a demo later showing that I mean.

I don't see any sign of that effect.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Hey everyone,

So I just stumbled across this thread and those lights immediately struck me as very interesting. Let me explain why:

When I was 13 years old sometime in November I was walking my dog out around the woods where we lived. At the time I lived in southeastern, PA USA. Hills, woods, clear skies etc. Anyway, around dusk I turned a corner and about 100 feet above me was a black triangle shaped "UFO". Just hovering. To me now the best way I can describe it was a B-2 Spirit Steal Bomber, but jacknifed vertically. I made out some kind of, hmm maybe orbs...lights? Whatever it may they were on the same position of these lights I see here.

It looks to me exactly like the object I saw that day only now hovering horizontally. Since that time I have been extremely interested in space, UFOs, etc. Well I mean, who wouldn't be? I am 30 now, and this really looks to me like the best description of what I saw that day. When I look at it my eyes literally fill in the outline of this craft. I know how it sounds but that is my perception. Also, like I said I am not new to this and this absolutely floored me when I saw it. I truly think it is some kind of probe/research stealth vehicle that is hidden by the background of space. Who's it is, and what intent and purpose it may have...well that is the only thing up to debate with me.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
If someone can take a series of pictures showing the ISS crossing the viewpath of the sun the cat's pretty much out of the bag, and anyone with the capability of orbital spaceflight can pretty much vector in the exact position of the ISS.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Discussing whether the image has been edited or not is silly, since it's quite obvious. (my opinion)

So I sent them an e-mail asking about this picture and here are their response:


Thank you for your observant eye and for notifying us.

You are right that some effort was made to make the image more appealing. Whereas NASA imagery professionals would not manipulate a star field or crop out hardware, they would possibly attempt to correct the ghosting around the target and perhaps some inadvertent cloning of some dead pixels occurred. This image was poorly exposed when it was shot so a great deal of density and contrast correction had to be performed. The raw image did not contain the dead pixels and they are not star fields as described.

NASA quit flying “secret” equipment in the late eighties when it quit conducting missions in space on behalf of the Department of Defense.

Thanks again and please write us again when you have such questions.

Mike Gentry
Media Resource Center
Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX 77058


And with "as described" he's referring to this picture which I showed him:
www.marsanomalyresearch.com...


[edit on 2010/4/27 by TrappedSoul]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat
reply to post by Phage
 


I'm gonna do something a tad (stupid? Unbelievable?) interesting... and Somewhat disagree with you. *ducks*


I magnified the image to almost ridiculous sizes in Photoshop and looked around. I can see the Milky way faintly in the background, and the points of light all have 4 reflections at 4 points around them.

What I canNOT explain is the dupes- I abused the image as I usually do- no cuts, clones, pastes, or other obvious jiggery at all in the pic. I DID however find some solid pixels which I cannot explain (due to the fact I dont know what area on the shuttle this is shot, Brightness, ect.) I believe the solid white pixels are internal lights or camera artifacts, the ones that are diffuse are stars. Doesnt explain the 'stars' outside- unless there's something with built in camouflage. This is only my opinion, and I stand by blindfolded for the coming carnage (if any)


Sometimes, I just gotta wonder if Nasa doesn't release this stuff so people like us DO pull our hair out trying to figure out the weirdness...)


Wylekat, are you familiar with astrometry? It basically means that if you have an image containing a star field, it can be tested and recognised against a database of visible stars, even if it is of relatively low quality. So, can you post a crop of the area you think is the Milky Way, or the items that are definitely stars, and I'll get it analysed (and show you how it works).

Problem is, for any exposure that is appropriate for a sunlit spacecraft, the numbers don't add up. Stars are WAY too dim to show up in such an exposure.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Well I've think most people here, have always known NASA has been tampering with pretty much every image they release to the public. Whenever someone posts a thread here at ats, it is asked that they post the original untouched images, in which NASA doesn't do.. It always has to be "cleaned" and "processed" before given to the public. I ask why would you trust any image they give out, if they aren't giving the originals...



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join