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: 6
43
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53

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".




Can you explain what you mean re above because what Phage was saying, you wont GET stars in the image because the exposure time is to quick so what are you trying to imply




posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tigpoppa
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.



There are two problems with the header. One is that the information is hidden unless you have some utility to see the info. The second problem is that in most all imaging applications, once the image is re-saved in another application (outside the camera), all the information is lost.


So.... if the EXIF Header is missing - it will tell all...



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anjaba
reply to post by JPhish
 


I agree completely! It's extremely obvious that it was duplicated and pasted there.. I can never jump on with the "faces" in the rock crowd because to me that is stretching it a bit, but this is right there plain as day.


I am truly not trying to be an ass here, but I have to ask, "Who cares?" I mean, why is it such a big deal that there are items in space that they don't want the masses to see?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
It's been a LONG while since I've posted, but this made me think... and therefore FORCE you to think with me


Maybe there is an ATS member in NASA working the photoshop job, but keeping their identity super secret, so they can put out obvious fakes like this one. IF they are an ATS member in secret, then the would know how completely anal we get over picking apart pictures.

This, if that is the case, is this theorhetical person shouting "HEY, LOOK HERE! I'M GIVING YOU OBVIOUS EVIDENCE SINCE I CAN'T JUST TELL YOU THE TRUTH!"

What the truth is, that is what we must speculate on. Maybe our annonymous "Photoshop Phriend"
will let a few more obvious 'lazy pieces' loose so we can figure out what is going on.

Thank you Photoshop Phriend!
AND thank you OP, for giving me a nice nudge to the brain!



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
This work was posted by Skipper on his site.
Skipper states that all of NASA's releases are altered, every one. He also states that the most recent releases are most likely reviewed by an AI program which automatically alters the images prior to public release. Some of these are poorly done but they are sophisticated forgeries in the main.
The older the material the less qualified the alterations. You can see the alterations more readily. I examined an Apollo moon shot and the cloning was SO contrived that I was stunned. I have an awful eye but it was so easily seen that they had duplicated a fairly large area of the hill used as a backdrop.
Why? Many try to pierce that veil imposed by speculation. It doesn't matter. Your government is lying.
This is a conspiracy site, now feel conspired against.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrappedSoul

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



Dang, whats that all you NASA lovers? NASA do not intentionally tamper with their images. This letter begs to differ.

Another one to add to the collection.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by KILL_DOGG
I am truly not trying to be an ass here, but I have to ask, "Who cares?" I mean, why is it such a big deal that there are items in space that they don't want the masses to see?


I don't want to come across as brash but why are you on this site? this is a conspiracy site, its a HUGE deal if NASA are hiding something, because then we have to ask WHAT ARE THEY HIDING and WHY.

Since many members here have had personal experiences with UFO'S and many are on the edge of theri seats waiting for the inevitable.

A little research is in order I feel.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


There seems no question but what the image is doctored to remove something.

The question is what? Yeah, could be an ET ship, one of our triangles in orbit (most likely) or one of our weapons platforms that simply got in the way of the field of view.

So, we've got nothing definite. But we don't need anything definite. We already know or can guess as to what secrets are up there.

Does anybody really believe that NASA's technology is the upper limit of what we can do in space? If you believe that, than I have some old shuttles that will be for sale soon to install in your local parks and flight museums. Personally, I'll wait for the triangles to be given those spots.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Aliensun]


jra

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Dang, whats that all you NASA lovers? NASA do not intentionally tamper with their images. This letter begs to differ.


How is editing an image to make it more appealing, which something that many people do, equate to tampering? There is no evidence that there was something to secretive to 'cover up'.

Do the other images I linked to earlier show any signs of having been edited at all or is it just the one in the OP?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
S&F

It makes me furious that NASA perpetuates a lie with OUR money



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anjaba
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


The only thing I'll trust them to do is keep making little mistakes like this to keep confirming my beliefs.


I believe that this was done "lazily" on purpose, so we could catch it. I start to think there are some people on the inside who are sick and tired of the lies.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
NASA Job Ad up as of today...

NASA TECH:
Must be good at blaa blaa blaa - blaa blaa blaa blaa
also blaa blaa blaa blaa blaa...
..., oh yeah - if you know how to work cs4 that would help as the old guy is stuck on cs3 and cant work out how to rotate, or resize cloned images


NASA - the men who blow on goats!



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seitler
It's been a LONG while since I've posted, but this made me think... and therefore FORCE you to think with me


Maybe there is an ATS member in NASA working the photoshop job, but keeping their identity super secret, so they can put out obvious fakes like this one. IF they are an ATS member in secret, then the would know how completely anal we get over picking apart pictures.

This, if that is the case, is this theorhetical person shouting "HEY, LOOK HERE! I'M GIVING YOU OBVIOUS EVIDENCE SINCE I CAN'T JUST TELL YOU THE TRUTH!"

What the truth is, that is what we must speculate on. Maybe our annonymous "Photoshop Phriend"
will let a few more obvious 'lazy pieces' loose so we can figure out what is going on.

Thank you Photoshop Phriend!
AND thank you OP, for giving me a nice nudge to the brain!


Its long shot here but i think J. P. Skipper(owner of marsanamolyresearch.com) said that a guy by the name of Jonathan(?) Mulder brought it up.

Mulder... X-files...? Maybe NASA is slowly trying to leak this out for us.

Regardless, I am particularly enjoying people trying to deny the photoshop here.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seitler
It's been a LONG while since I've posted, but this made me think... and therefore FORCE you to think with me


Maybe there is an ATS member in NASA working the photoshop job, but keeping their identity super secret, so they can put out obvious fakes like this one. IF they are an ATS member in secret, then the would know how completely anal we get over picking apart pictures.

This, if that is the case, is this theorhetical person shouting "HEY, LOOK HERE! I'M GIVING YOU OBVIOUS EVIDENCE SINCE I CAN'T JUST TELL YOU THE TRUTH!"

What the truth is, that is what we must speculate on. Maybe our annonymous "Photoshop Phriend"
will let a few more obvious 'lazy pieces' loose so we can figure out what is going on.

Thank you Photoshop Phriend!
AND thank you OP, for giving me a nice nudge to the brain!


They have been working on "photoshop" for years since the moon landing. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually have an art department but call it something else. I think they helped invent the program called Sketchpad.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Hold on hold on hold on....If NASA was tampering with photos that have something to hide....why POST THE PHOTOS AT ALL! Why wouldn't they just press that little delete button and make it go away? I mean really? Why?

If I killed somebody and took a photo of their house and accidentally got the dead guy in the background, would I keep the photo? Noooooo.....

Doesn't make any sense to me.

Edited because I'm not an English teacher...

[edit on 6-5-2010 by JJRichey]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by JJRichey
Hold on hold on hold on....If NASA was tampering with photos that have something to hide....why POST THE PHOTOS AT ALL! Why wouldn't they just press that little delete button and make it go away? I mean really? Why?

If I killed somebody and took a photo of their house and accidentally got the dead guy in the background, would I keep the photo? Noooooo.....

Doesn't make any sense to me.

Edited because I'm not an English teacher...

[edit on 6-5-2010 by JJRichey]


There could be multiple reasons:

1) A lot of photos have some kind of anomaly, and its more productive to simply brush/photocrop than to take multiple photos.

2) ***i subscribe to this theory, just fyi**** NASA cannot leak the truth, but doesnt want to hide it completely. They give subtle hints and clues about this kind of stuff but dont tell you that its truth. There is alot of evidence of this side of NASA when you start researching some of the mars anomalies. .

3) These things come up in post production. If you took 20 photos, planned to release 5, and 18 have anomalies, you will simply take 3 with anomalies that you know you can obfuscate. Problem solved.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by demonseed

1)...
2)...
3)...

and of course...

4) If you don't know much about imaging/photography and conditions in space, combined with an intense desire to believe something is 'up'.. you will tend to see lots more 'anomalies' than those in the other camp..



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
It's not an "anomaly."

It is clearly edited. That is known.

It's not a glare or fingerprint either.. If it was a fingerprint or glare then it would still be in the picture. Every other picture in that album that contains a glare or fingerprint etc has not been edited..go check. So why did they decide to edit this particular picture?? Duh! maybe because it was more than just a..fingerprint. I don't get it sometimes. Obviously they aren't worried about fingerprints or what have you or else they would be removed from all the other pictures in the album too..



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by demonseed

1)...
2)...
3)...

and of course...

4) If you don't know much about imaging/photography and conditions in space, combined with an intense desire to believe something is 'up'.. you will tend to see lots more 'anomalies' than those in the other camp..


You havent seen some of the Mars stuff, have you?

Here, let me direct you:
www.youtube.com...

start watching at 0:44 seconds. If that doesn't strike you as "odd" then i really dont know what to say....



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by demonseed

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by demonseed

1)...
2)...
3)...

and of course...

4) If you don't know much about imaging/photography and conditions in space, combined with an intense desire to believe something is 'up'.. you will tend to see lots more 'anomalies' than those in the other camp..


You havent seen some of the Mars stuff, have you?

Here, let me direct you:
www.youtube.com...

start watching at 0:44 seconds. If that doesn't strike you as "odd" then i really dont know what to say....


Post a still image and make your point. Argument by youtube simply indicates you are either lazy, gullible, don't know the topic, or don't care enough to put in some effort. Or a combination perhaps. This is a discussion forum. DISCUSS.

As for NASA editing images, of course they do, for publication, for better web-display, etc. Do they do a good job? - NO! In my not-very humble opinion their editing, especially from years back, sucks.

But the important thing is, that you can ALWAYS get back to the original source images, if you know how to do basic research. Sometimes NASA will even provide them for you, but usually you will simply be pointed to the appropriate archive.

Now, IF you have a particularly compelling image, then post it along with where you got it, and I'll go find the original for you (providing you give me enough information..).


But then you might look a little silly for not being able to find it yourself....



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join