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: 7
43
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 04:34 AM
link   

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....


LOL

every image in that youtube is from the jpl nasa database. Im not going to link you every single one.

If you want, go to www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

The guy who runs that site has everything catalogued and scrutinized and he links ALL the data to the scientific nasa database.

The fact that you think those images are a youtube hoax only proves my point. Its not, NASA hides stuff, and when you realize this you realize that there could be a "10km long space ship" (ala phage) floating in the abyss of space they dont want you to see.

Or, its just some guy at NASA photoshopping dead pixels to screw with us......

You decide....




posted on May, 31 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   
here you go:

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

optical illusion? Sure.....

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

^^ that one is just so obvious theres no denying it. If thats not a forest then i dont know what is...

Make sure you scroll down for the marsh evidence with the lake. You can even see the tree sticking out of the water being partially submerged. The evidence is just undeniable here.

Heres the NASA links, in case "you" where to lazy to find them on the site:

www.msss.com...

(make sure to download the image and zoom in closely. These are hi-res satellite images so there is a lot to look at. )

[edit on 31-5-2010 by demonseed]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
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.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   

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...


Good work TrappedSoul, the last time I saw someone report cloning on a NASA image, they replaced the cloned image with one that didn't have any cloning.

They did say they'd attempt to correct ghosting around the target and I always wondered if when Captain Kirk came back to the present time in Star Trek 4 if his cloaked Klingon ship made a "ghosting effect", so maybe NASA is inadvertently hiding some cloaked ships when they think they're editing out ghosts?
Nah, I doubt it, but NASA sure must like fueling the conspiracy theorists' fantasies by putting out these cloned images!


Thanks for the great research!



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   

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.


Im trying to respond to the guy accusing me of just being crazy. Im not trying to hijack anything. As a matter of fact this thread happened because of the exact site i mentioned so there is no hijacking here just pressing forward with more scrutiny.

Read the analysis of that image on J.P. Skippers site(the one i linked above). You can clearly see tree's sticking out. 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....

Let me go take a picture of some dark desert bushes through a fish eye and call them dark dirt smudged across the terrain. Hell, ill say i took it on Mars. Why not?

Face it, either they are taking pictures of Earth and calling it Mars, or we are being completely lied to about everything that is out there.

The simple fact that there is life on Mars, be it fish and Lichen to intelligent dwarf cave dwellers, that will shatter scientists views of our universe. NASA wont tell you the truth so you gotta find it yourself. Sorry if thats too difficult for you but at this point thats not my problem.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   

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...?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

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...?


you fail at debunking on so many levels, just quit.

You didnt address a single issue. Let me sum up what you said:

"blah blah blah i am a scientist blah blah blah."

"The image is 2d so those are not trees"
What? No dude im wearing 3d glasses so i can see it in 3d those are trees! /end sarcasm

"By your definition,NASA is lies, so you showing us NASA lying means you are lying"

What kind of sciences are you in? Because with that kind of logic anybody could get a job in that field.....

You selectively ignored 90% of the pictures, picked the straw man(which there where none, so you made one up yourself), and then used fail logic and baseless "i am a scientist hear me roar".

You are a failed debunker. Dont quit your dayjob...

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).

[edit on 31-5-2010 by demonseed]


[edit on 31-5-2010 by demonseed]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   

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.


Ill bet you didnt know, but i am a scientist. I am a psychologist, and i recommend you check out this very important psychological term:
en.wikipedia.org...(psychology)

This should help you understand what you are going through and hopefully help you see the truth.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Anjaba
 


That is crazy! So I definitely think 100% that this is for sure an edited NASA photo.. No doubt.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 


Actually the name of the informer is "Sander Mulder" and he is most definitely NOT on the pay-roll of NASA.

Greetz from The Netherlands,

Sander



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I clearly see background noise not a duplicate. If they were trying to hide something they wouldn't let the original background noise show through.

To say they simply used the screen composite control the lower left of the box wouldn't be darker in the red square than the yellow square, it would have additional lighter background noise, which isn't really amplified in any area.



Clone stamp tool not apparent especially in the top left star.





posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
For all the debunkers who claim that stars aren't visible in space here are some pics.

Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
Image 4
Image 5
edit on 14-8-2011 by DutchBigBoy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
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?



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

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?


He is a big dutchboy he may have been smoking something



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
There were some posts earlier who said they weren't visible because of exposure



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DutchBigBoy
There were some posts earlier who said they weren't visible because of exposure


Well exposure works both ways not enough they don't show just right they do to much and they are over exposed.

Now do you understand.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


It was brought back for me to add a post to. (kidding).



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join