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.
Originally posted by CHRLZ
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....
Originally posted by TrappedSoul
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...
Originally posted by CHRLZ
One minute the discussion is editing anomalies and jpeg or photographic effects, the next it's the old 'trees on mars' routine? This has been covered in other ATS threads. Stop hijacking.
And as you sound like an AOL user, here's a suitable link, seeing that is how you like to debate:
www.aolnews.com...
Note that there is a *real* shadow on that image - read the text for heaven's sake.
You reckon the dark smudges are Remnant shadows???
Forgive my mirth. I think they are elephant footprints, using similar logic.
Originally posted by demonseed
You can call it an optical illusion to some degree, but you cant optically elude a tree sticking out of the freakin ground. Cmon now....
Face it..
NASA wont tell you the truth
Originally posted by CHRLZ
Originally posted by demonseed
You can call it an optical illusion to some degree, but you cant optically elude a tree sticking out of the freakin ground. Cmon now....
I'm sorry, but.. YES, I CAN. Maybe that's because I work in the sciences. I don't take things for granted. I don't expect to see earthly stuff on an alien planet. I understand what dendrites look like, and what they are, and why dendritic shapes often appear in geological landscapes. I understand the other odd effects (like inverted craters) that appear in images taken from above. I have looked at the scientific explanations for this image. And I don't see any evidence whatsoever of 3D shadows, let alone trees casting them.. It's a 2d image, and the illumination is clearly not causing what you think are shadows. That's why those 'shadows' are only (to you) 'remnants', and don't actually match the 'treeline'..
And perhaps all of that can be reduced to a simple statement..
I understand pareidolia... and how to avoid it.
I have opinions that are worth just as much as yours (nuthin), except mine happen to be backed not just by NASA, but by the scientific community in general. If you dispute that, point me to a site from a recognised scientific organisation who agrees with your tree identification... I mean if it's dat obvious to *you*...?
All being paid by NASA to keep quiet? Or are you wrong. Difficult choice...
Face it..
YOU face it, that issue has been done to death elsewhere, and your intense belief (desire?) in the tree theory counts for pretty much nothing, unless you are a qualified geologist and imaging expert.
They aren't trees. And I'll lay a sizable bet that later images will verify that, when the location is reimaged with different sun illumination angles.
I'll wait...
NASA wont tell you the truth
Then why are you citing their images? By your definition they aren't 'truth', so you are spreading lies by your own admission...?
Originally posted by demonseed
ps: A scientist at Arizona University is saying there is liquid water on the north poles of mars. He said you can see it evaporating on the rover images.
And yes, many scientists
1) Dont use the internet to the degree we do.
2) Assume NASA is whole and good so when the mere notion of something like this comes up they completely ignore it.
3) Are fearful of their colleagues making fun of them(this is slowly changing).
Originally posted by CHRLZ
Originally posted by demonseed
ps: A scientist at Arizona University is saying there is liquid water on the north poles of mars. He said you can see it evaporating on the rover images.
So there folks, is the corroborating evidence of trees. Enough for demonseed, anyway.
Is anyone here denying there is water on Mars, by the way?
And yes, many scientists
1) Dont use the internet to the degree we do.
2) Assume NASA is whole and good so when the mere notion of something like this comes up they completely ignore it.
3) Are fearful of their colleagues making fun of them(this is slowly changing).
Ah, so that's why no-one with scientific cred agrees with you! Of course, it so obvious now! Yes, that's much more likely than you being wrong.
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by DutchBigBoy
Who said stars aren't visible from space?
You just need the right camera settings to see them.
Why has this old thread been brought back from the dead?
Originally posted by DutchBigBoy
There were some posts earlier who said they weren't visible because of exposure