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: 5
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


I sampled 3 images- one from the top left of the pic, one closer to the crosshairs, and the 'photoshopped' one. I inverted colors, unsharped masked, and twiddled with brightness and contrast to bring out the details. You can figure out the starfield from looking at the pic in it's unrefined form. Feel free to, in fact. I dont see anything even remotely recognizable.









posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 05:35 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...)



It's IMPOSSIBLE for the Milky Way to be in that image take a look at this link, this picture give the details on top edge of frame.

content.rogergroom.com...

The image was stacked in a software program to get a decent result 8x30 second exposures were needed.!

You guys just see something then have a guess at what it is



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Wow. And all I did was say what I SAW. I didnt say it was fact, oh, so gloriously smarter than me (not).

You're belching at someone who has managed to tease stars out of Apollo pics.

This pic just plain confuses me and everyone else- so take your childish noises outside, k?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

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).


What computer program do you use to do this? I'd be very interested in knowing. Until your post, I was under the impression that matching an image containing a pattern of stars to their counterparts in the sky was a difficult problem.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Ah the old Star Replacing Filed Photo shop tricking creating an illusion of the similar stars or even planets.


I guess NASA does a pretty bad job at this.

You can also try this, on photoshop or other programs.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
i did some editing on the original nasa photo and it proves beyond any reasonable doubt this is not a coincidental occurance, you can see for yourself on the resulting pictures.
here are the links

i216.photobucket.com...

i216.photobucket.com...

i216.photobucket.com...

i216.photobucket.com...

i216.photobucket.com...

i purposely put the 3 steps i made to get to the endresult uphere too, that way you can compare the background noise at any level you want



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by GzusCriest
 


Yea, it's obviously been "cloned" or "patched."... I checked out the pic at a higher gamma and confirm the identical background noise. Now the question that remains is.. What exactly were they removing from the picture? I have come to the conclusion that it was not a scratch, smudge or fingerprint on the film because they did not bother to remove similar objects from the other photos in the album.

Reply To Doc Velocity: I agree that it could have been some sort of coordinate or something, but why do that when this is available
ISS Tracker .gov
Seems kind of pointless to remove something because of "National Security" when it is available in other places..

I personally think it was some form of technology that the public is unaware of at this point in time.. *Not Alien IMO* but classified to the general public.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Anjaba]

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Anjaba]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anjaba
Reply To Doc Velocity: I agree that it could have been some sort of coordinate or something, but why do that when this is available
ISS Tracker .gov
Seems kind of pointless to remove something because of "National Security" when it is available in other places..

On the other hand, why would anyone trust a posted ISS coordinate, even (and especially) on a government website?

It's well-known that the "gubbermint" doesn't post or share exact coordinates of anything of a sensitive nature. Even commercial GPS is prohibited from providing exact coordinates — while military GPS can place a missile on a target the size of a quarter, commercial GPS won't allow you within several yards of such a coordinate. And understandably so.

I still think that any sort of coordinate read-out deemed "sensitive" is going to be graphically patched — and not necessarily seamlessly — before a government photo is released to the public.

In fact, I wish I could land the job of retouching government photos. I promise you, you'd never find a repeating pattern in one of my retouches.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


actualy - i and many others do trust the govt issued for the ISS and other major objects in orbit

as i do occassionally go out and look - i admit that i only actually have a 50% sucess rate - but i am not that good an astronomer - and only use a spotting scope

but i know others that can locate almost anything that the govt publishes data for if they have clear skies

as for GPS accuracy - i believe your basing your opinions on outdated data

what you say was true in 1989 - but is not the case in 2010 - consumer gps units are not limited to 4 to 5 m accuracy by any govt secrecy - but by cost

i have a garmin GPSMAP76CSX - which is a pretty good spec consumer hand held - and at £275 [ when new ] pretty expensive - and thats accurate to 3m in good conditions

but i have worked with commercial surveying gear like topcon and trimble for surveying and GIS work - and they have centimeter accuracy

but the hire cost is more than my own garmin costs - and the kits are £ 10000 to 15000 pounds to buy new - no thats not a typo i said upto fifthteen thousand pounds

it really is true - you get what you pay for


[edit on 28-4-2010 by ignorant_ape]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Anjaba
 


Simple answer and there not hiding anything. This system the Crewman Optical Alignment Sight is used for docking and judging distances it does this by combining two images. Works the same as you having 2 eyes to judge distance. When they focus in on closer object more distant ones will double very similar to you crossing your eyes. so they would edit the picture or distant objects would look bad very bad


[edit on 4/28/10 by dragonridr]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat
Wow. And all I did was say what I SAW. I didnt say it was fact, oh, so gloriously smarter than me (not).

You're belching at someone who has managed to tease stars out of Apollo pics.

This pic just plain confuses me and everyone else- so take your childish noises outside, k?



Stars take many seconds to register on film or digital sensors it is that simple check picts on astrophotography sites.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tearman

Originally posted by CHRLZ
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).


What computer program do you use to do this? I'd be very interested in knowing. Until your post, I was under the impression that matching an image containing a pattern of stars to their counterparts in the sky was a difficult problem.

I'll preface my reply with a very important point, just in case anyone thinks that this process can be faked... It is Open Source - the programming and algorithms used, along with the databases (star atlases) are openly available - you can even compile and run this stuff yourself, if you have that sort of mindset (I don't..).

Here's where it all started (sort of):
astrometry.net...

Note that the algorithms are tuned to only give definite matches, in other words if the image does not contain enough stars to match up it will fail, and it will NOT just take a wild guess or give a 'false positive'.

I've watched it in action on other threads, and it is, frankly, amazing. I've not yet seen a miss, and very few no matches..

Sadly I don't have much ATS time right time, other priorities are pressing, but anyone can do it.. Just bear in mind that the image needs a reasonable number of stars to work - those images might be pushing it uphill, I suspect...

And here's an example of it in use - you can just post your starfield images to this Flickr group (but you will have to join first):

www.flickr.com...

and hopefully, presto... (Although I note they are having some response issues at the moment, so the 'solves' may be slower than usual.) I would ask readers to please NOT post images to the Flickr group without very good reason - if it gets overused....

So, nothing to download (unless you want to chase up the source code and DIY)...

Happy star matching!



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
Nice find.

Just checked it in photo shop.

It's EXACTLY same star cluster.

The only star that is different in luminosity is the one on the top left.

No way this is a coincidence in my opinion.

Duplicate fields, they're hiding something as usual.


Maybe it is Nibiru...errr Venus that was supposed to be there.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Anjaba
 

Well, if they aren't stars then it isn't a "fake star field", is it?

You'll have a hard time finding any images of the space station with any stars in it. Exposure issues.


exposure issues?! LOL I am well an expert with photoshop and can tell you can even erase the exposure "issues".



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Maybe we have a friend inside NASA helping or trying to show us something maybe thats why its 'lazy' and deliberate?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by TrappedSoul
 


Did nobody see my post?! NASA has now openly admitted that they have edited this image to make it more appealing!



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Anjaba
 


what the hell is that next to the space station ?

either way they have clearly duplicated that area , maybe its the secret military x37b

x37b



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrappedSoul
reply to post by TrappedSoul
 


Did nobody see my post?! NASA has now openly admitted that they have edited this image to make it more appealing!


I did, don't panic!!!

I still don't understand how a cloning could provide some of the effects shown. If anyone can duplicate it with repeatable steps (inc. the noise effects), I'd like to see it. But whatever.

Frankly, if that is what NASA said, I think their approach to this is quite flawed. It's a pretty vague answer, and frankly, if it was me, I would simply say (well, not exactly in these words, but you'll get the drift..) - "yep, it's a mess and seeing you asked, HERE IS THE ORIGINAL...."

NASA have done this in the past - it makes things much easier, and also shows they have a proper audit trail for the images.. But sometimes their PR skills are a little less than superb...



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
whats is the thing next to the ISS here above to the right

ISS



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by sapien82
whats is the thing next to the ISS here above to the right

ISS


It's a reflection of the most glary bits.. If you boost the brightness and look carefully, you will see that all of the really bright bits of the ISS are repeated - you can even measure the distances and verify that they match.. That bit just happens to be the brightest...

This happens when you shoot through a flat piece of glass at a slight angle.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join