NASA Deletes Suspicious Photos From Archive

page: 3
42
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
This has to be the stupidest thing I have ever seen, this isn't like CSI where you zoom in the picture and it comes out all perfect, so much jackassery going on here.




posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
damnit, this is like the 7th time I got a double post in a row


[edit on 7-8-2010 by Mythic Chris]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Thamelas
 

You saw something missing, they received your email, so they put it back up for you. What is the conspiracy?

If you are referring to the file's modify date, it changes when you move things around on different drives. It currently reflects the time it was uploaded onto the site. Someone may have turned it into a .jpeg file, or they opened it to make sure everything was fine. Nothing big.


Originally posted by Mythic Chris
This has to be the stupidest thing I have ever seen, this isn't like CSI where you zoom in the picture and it comes out all perfect, so much jackassery going on here.

Maybe someone is trying to fix the contrast.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Section31]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Phil Plait is that you?





posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Patriotgal
 


gravity well? You mean the van allen radiation belt?



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I just took the jpeg and the tiff into photoshop and decided to manipulate the gamma of each image. Usually that reveals a lot of trickery. Before I even adjusted the gamma I immediately noticed that within each picture that the orientation of the earth/moon were different in the jpeg when compared to the tiff. If it's a straight copy then there should be no orientation change. The jpeg was more tilted counter clockwise. I don't know the reason for the tilting. ALSO the jpeg has more saturation, look a the moon on OP's link, it has more reds and greens. I immediately thought of of Richard Hoagland and Mike Bara's explanation of the prism effect. THEN when I looked at the tiff, the color was almost totally gone, only to keep enough of the earth to look convincing.

I then started to adjust the gamma, the tiff clearly has the sky totally removed. The odd formation of the "termination" area should be more of a gradient. Even the "grain" on the background is too consistent to be real film grain. You should see of some sort of glare or "haze" from the light reflected from both the moon and earth. There shouldn't be any drop off into the blackness of space, it should have a gradient. Seems like someone just took the "magic wand" tool and cut out the sky, accidentally got into the shadow of the earth, replaced a few poorly made stars and then added the grain in the filters section to the sky.

Even the edges on the moon are just slightly too angular, there's no gradient. even on a tiff, there is compression, there's no hint of the compression being consistent with the background relation.

The data could have also been manipulated in the film processing before the digital manipulation. Remember these are scans of the positives. NOT the negatives.

(mods, sorry if the pictures are too big)

Here's the tiff:



Here is the jpeg:



[edit on 7-8-2010 by Animusmors]

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Animusmors]

(rescaled images)

[edit on Sat Aug 7 2010 by Jbird]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thamelas
So anyway, yesterday I posted my article on my website. Today I find out that image ISD_highres_AS11_AS11-44-6552.TIF had been deleted from the Johnson Space Center Image Archive.


why would you not download the photos and host them yourself instead of taking the bandwidth of their site.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bismos

Originally posted by Thamelas
So anyway, yesterday I posted my article on my website. Today I find out that image ISD_highres_AS11_AS11-44-6552.TIF had been deleted from the Johnson Space Center Image Archive.


why would you not download the photos and host them yourself instead of taking the bandwidth of their site.


If you actually looked at my article you would see that they are hosted on my site with a LINK to the original... I found out because I clicked the link to the NASA archive.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Thamelas]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Animusmors
 


From what I have seen, the best photos are the ones identified as "From ISD TIFF images", and in this case that means this photo (while it lasts on the server).

Being a TIFF image doesn't mean that it's better or closer to the original, as you found out.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Thamelas
 


This happens all the time. If you want more info, you might trying U2Uing ArMaP, as it has happened to him before (and can provide witness to the phenomenon).

Some have said that we were just digging in a working file, and the photo's were not meant to be there for a long time, just while they did something with them.

Who knows....but if you dig up the thread about John Lear's Moon images, you will find the info in there somewhere (and it is 300 pages of fairly good reading).

This is why Zorgon started linking to copies saved on his site. Once you linked to them publicly, they seem to vanish. Don't link to .gov type sites. Save the file elsewhere and link to it.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Animusmors
 


From what I have seen, the best photos are the ones identified as "From ISD TIFF images", and in this case that means this photo (while it lasts on the server).

Being a TIFF image doesn't mean that it's better or closer to the original, as you found out.


I had this opened in my browser for too long, i guess. Or i just was not diligent in reading the thread. Looks like ArMaP already noticed.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I have started to notice a current trend in these type of threads, especially where NASA is involved. The thread starts off talking about the OT and throwing in a few clever twists in order to gradually throw the thread in another direction then after a few more posts, the thread takes a direct hit from a barrage of posters. Which eventually causes it to to lose its stability and become something else. Could just be a coincedence, but I am watching this carefully.


The OT is discussing that NASA have taken a couple of images out of their online archive and them put them back once they received an email from the OP. There is speculation that the images have been cropped and tampered with.


I just wanted to make this clear so we can all keep on track and not 'steer' the OT in a direction that may suit others.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Could just be a coincedence, but I am watching this carefully.

That happens in many threads, regardless of the topic.


I just wanted to make this clear so we can all keep on track and not 'steer' the OT in a direction that may suit others.

Considering that the original topic was based on a wrong assumption (that the images were deleted from the archive and put back when the OP contacted them, the images on the FTP site are deleted after some time and they are put back when someone requests them), I don't see why should we keep on discussing that.

As for the images being cropped that's still being discussed.

Also, this has been discussed some times on ATS, as I said on my first post, this whole case was "created" on ATS some years ago.

PS: The links from the OP's site (I suppose its the OP's site) work at the moment, tomorrow they may not work again, if nobody requests those photos again.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Considering that the original topic was based on a wrong assumption (that the images were deleted from the archive and put back when the OP contacted them, the images on the FTP site are deleted after some time and they are put back when someone requests them), I don't see why should we keep on discussing that.


Look I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but when was the conclusion reached that I was wrong? All I have seen is theorising that images are automatically replaced when requested. I've seen no reason or proof what so ever to believe that is the correct conclusion about the image deletion and replacement. I'm not attacking, I'm just pointing out a fact here. There is no grounds on which to state that I made a "wrong assumption."



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thamelas
Look I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but when was the conclusion reached that I was wrong?

As far as I know there was no unanimous conclusion about anything, that's my own conclusion.


All I have seen is theorising that images are automatically replaced when requested. I've seen no reason or proof what so ever to believe that is the correct conclusion about the image deletion and replacement.
That's not just theorising, they say so in the site.


The files in this pickup area are deleted automatically every 24 hours. If you do not find ISD_highres_AS11_AS11-44-6552_2.JPG there, then it may be that you did not attempt to retrieve it soon enough, in which case you may request it over again.
Source (at the bottom of the page)

My experience (I have used that site for at least the last four years) also tells me that's how things happen.


I'm not attacking, I'm just pointing out a fact here. There is no grounds on which to state that I made a "wrong assumption."
And you are right in pointing it, just because I know how that site works doesn't mean that other people will automatically understand what I say about it.

But according to my experience and that site's rules you did based your post on a wrong assumption.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I understand your point. However, even though that is what they state on their page, it is clearly not how they operate. A simple review of the listings on that page goes back as far as the late 1990's. So if the files in that directory are routinely deleted, then why have many of the files been there for years? The dates and times are clearly visible at: eol.jsc.nasa.gov...



[edit on 7-8-2010 by Thamelas]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Thamelas
 

What they say is consistent with what I have noticed all these years, that's why I believe it.

The problem with the dates is that I don't know what that date is supposed to show.

If it's the date and time the files were created on the server, I doubt that means that the same disk has been used for that since December 11, 1996, the oldest date I see at this moment.

But there's a easy way of confirming that, we just have to save the list of the files that are on the server at this moment and compare it with the list tomorrow, for example.

PS: I wouldn't be surprised if some files are not affected by the 24 hour time limit.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I've already done that at the bottom of my article.

I posted it yesterday.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Thamelas]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
...and this is why it is very important we all download as many NASA images as possible - because they do go missing...

like the REST of the LO IV images


Also download all the old footage - as there is some VERY interesting stuff in the Apollo films...more to follow soon about that...

Oh and download ALL JAXA HD videos - because there are a few ANOMALIES in those as well....

ARCHIVE, ARCHIVE, ARCHIVE!!!



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


From what I know about image compression, I use TIFFs all the time for visual effects in image sequences; TIFFs are just another form of compression. Even though TIFF is considered to be one of the least compressed formats, all digital media has some sort of compression to it.

From what I see on the images, and mind you, I only manipulated the gamma on the images that I posted, I think the jpeg is actually a better representation of the real picture since there is more information within the surrounding sky AND it still retains some color on the moon. But even THEN, I think there was some data manipulation before the picture was digitized. The moon on the TIFF is totally desaturated. I've never seen any picture or video format to desaturate itself or saturate itself when being recompressed without having some desaturation/saturation manipulation before final image compression. That means that somehow, the jpeg added some color to itself when it got compressed.

Now, I did do more manipulation that I didn't post just because I thought the gamma was just enough because their "fix" is just so bad. I did oversaturate the TIFF, the color didn't really change on the moon, which means, compared to the jpeg, the color on the moon looked very beautiful, the termination edge looked way more prevalent, and the moon didn't really have ANY color whatsoever. To me, that means, that, when compared to the jpeg, color was taken out on the moon, the earth had some color retained as in a separate layer with a different sky AND the termination line on the earth was almost non-existant on the jpeg.

NASA, just disclose all the information that we pay you for, before you shoot yourselves in the foot and have the people revolt against you!!!

This really is ridiculous that they are hiding what we all already know. They take us for idiots.

NASA = Never A Straight Answer





new topics
top topics
 
42
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join