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.

 

Conspiracy theorists confident Photoshopped NASA image is a cover-up

page: 1
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Conspiracy theorists confident Photoshopped NASA image is a cover-up


www.news.com. au

A video posted on YouTube yesterday showed how an image of Saturn's moons Dione and Titan, taken by NASA's Cassini orbiter, had been Photoshopped before being added to a Picture of the Day website.

In the video, "DominatorPS3" turned up the brightness levels on the photo to show that a "huge" object can be seen behind the smaller moon, Dione.

Clearly visible are brush strokes that show how the rainbow aura of the object has been blacked out.
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Apparently, the NASA artist tried to explain it this way but the question I have now is, are all of NASA's images photoshopped? If so, as it would seem from the explanation, then how can anyone trust the images?


"Cassini takes colour pictures by snapping three sequential photos through red, green, and blue filters," she said.

"In the time that separated the three frames, Dione moved, so if I did a simple color composite I would be able to make Titan look right, but not Dione; or Dione look right, but not Titan.

"So I aligned Dione, cut it out, and then aligned Titan, and then had to account for the missing bits of shadow where the bits of Dione had been in two of the three channels."


This explanation isn't on the image description on NASA's website. What is there is that "the image has been magnified by a factor of 1.5 and contrast-enhanced to aid visibility." Hmmm, no mention at all about cutting and pasting. This is what's there (it's in the 71-80 gallery in case the link doesn't take you directly to the image in question):

www.nasa.gov...

The surface of Saturn's moon Dione is rendered in crisp detail against a hazy, ghostly Titan. Visible in this image are hints of atmospheric banding around Titan's north pole.

The image was taken in visible blue light with the Cassini spacecraft narrow-angle camera on April 10, 2010. The view was acquired at a distance of approximately 1.8 million kilometers (1.1 million miles) from Dione and 2.7 million kilometers (1.7 million miles) from Titan. Scale in the original image was 11 kilometers (7 miles) per pixel on Dione and 16 kilometers (10 miles) on Titan. The image has been magnified by a factor of 1.5 and contrast-enhanced to aid visibility.

Image Credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute


Of other interest, is the fact that the youtube video referenced in the article isn't on DominatorPS3's Youtube channel anymore. The last comment on his channel asks a very good question...


jtpfreak (4 hours ago)
Where is your new UFO video with the brightness turned up on Saturn's moons Dione and Titan?
Was it removed?




www.news.com. au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I examined this myself yesterday and was very curious as to why such a sloppy job was done with that image.

If there is something to hide, they could have done much better.
If there was nothing to hide, they could have done much better.

Of course, this is neither the first nor the worst case of poor post-processing we have been treated to.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Did you by any chance see the video by DominatorPS3 yesterday? I didn't and I'd love to, although just the pictures in the article were revealing enough to be able to see what he's talking about.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman


Apparently, the NASA artist tried to explain it this way but the question I have now is, are all of NASA's images photoshopped? If so, as it would seem from the explanation, then how can anyone trust the images?

Emily is not a NASA artist or part of the Cassini imaging team, she's just a regular person who took NASA's raw unedited images off the Cassini website and made a composite. Normally such composites when released by NASA do not require such photoshopping, but when you have two objects moving relative to each other between color filtered images, heavy editing is required to produce a color photo. Some of the PR photos released from Cassini may have this kind of editing done if they show moons that actually moved noticeably between images, but the way NASA does it is probably much more professional. If it were me, for instance, I would take one photo and use it as the luminance channel and make the color channels by separating the moons into layers and recompositing them. That way you can state quite clearly, the luminance channel was image x, the red green blue channels were extracted from images x, y, and z, that way everyone can know what you did. Looking at the Cassini website though I noticed that NASA doesn't tend to do color composites if there are moons present; they don't want to do any unnatural edits like that if they can avoid it. In any case, ALL of Cassini's images are made publicly available in raw unedited form and there's a whole section devoted to those images on the Cassini website.
edit on 8-10-2010 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
So all they have to do is post the 3 composite pictures as simple proof to all.

Is anyone able to search for the page link (obtained from your browser history) to DominatorPS3 video - it could be in Google's cache



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Very interesting and not suprising.

I agree, I certainly do not trust 'official evidence' or data for that matter.

The only thing we really know is what we see first hand.

People can link graphs and data all they want as conclusive evidence, "the numbers don't lie" is often banded about on this site and others as conclusive proof, yet photos and video's are always seen through a skeptical eye.

Ironic eh? Considering it is almost effortless to alter numbers as opposed to modify a photo/video to a decent standard.

We know next to nothing, yet we talk as if we know everything.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


I did see the video, it was essentially a demonstration of the analysis used to uncover the editing. If you saw the before and after images you saw the net result. The video served only to show that the author used straightforward processing to uncover the smudge effect.

In other words, you didn't miss anything substantive, unless you are of a mind to question the methods which led to the conclusions.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by CitizenNum287119327
So all they have to do is post the 3 composite pictures as simple proof to all.

Here's a list of every raw picture of dione/titan taken on the day that Emily drew from to create her composite image. It's not hard to figure out which ones she probably used:
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
I can't believe this topic is still an issue. Some cassini fan took three images and did a poor job photoshopping a color composite out of them. If someone else took my astrophotography and made a fake composite out of it, it shouldn't discredit me or my astrophotography.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
ok i may need correcting here.. but in space there have to be light sources so in these photos where are all the stars????



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by simonp
ok i may need correcting here.. but in space there have to be light sources so in these photos where are all the stars????


The sun is the light source. Fast exposures will not reveal stars, but fast exposures are required to properly expose objects lit by the sun. That's why you don't see stars in most NASA photos of ISS, the shuttle, nor do you see them in photos of the moon taken on earth where the moon is properly exposed.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Let me first go on record by adding: I totally think NASA is less than forthcoming with us and their findings. But I can't help to question, why of all photos taken, would they'd run the risk of putting an airbrushed one out in the public domain? Just sounds awfully fortuitous and if nothing else, imprudent on their part too!



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Is it being alledged that the marks around that moon (that I've outlined) are airbrushed in or......is that supposed shape of the UFO which was later, airbrushed out?




posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
HEY GUYZ! BRAKING NEWZ!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7943aeaafdd5.gif[/atsimg]

DIONE DOEZNT EXIZT!!! SEE!!!

I DID GUD JOB RITE GUYZ???

Am I qualified to work for NASA's Photoshop department now? I need a job.

edit on 10/8/2010 by PETROLCOIN because: to dumb down my grammar and spelling.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Here's an obvious question that nobody ever answers.
Nasa is constantly accused of :
1: Releasing doctored photos to cover up aliens.
2: Releasing video and pictures showing "anonolies" and UFO's.

Anybody see any contradiction here?
Here's the question:
Why would they do either one?
Wouldn't it make sense to simply not release any photos in the first place?
Who would know if they left something out?



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
They are stilla public agency, are required to release their findings. Also to answer that question about the seeming contradiction, it would make sense if their were two factions within NASA; one concerning itself with keeping findings hidden, and another wanted to release them into public domain.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
This thread is a duplicate of this one. It is more civil, however.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by bigbomb456
 


They do release their findings. The problem is that people who don't understand how digital imaging and transmission work jump all over any little processing artifact and try to turn it into something else. In this case, a fan tried to make a dramatic collage which NASA posted for its aesthetic value. It is clearly not one of their raw images, which are all readily available and properly documented. Sheesh.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by CitizenNum287119327
So all they have to do is post the 3 composite pictures as simple proof to all.


Most people, who don't have some kind of bug up their butts about NASA being evil and trying to hide proof of alien activity, don't really care. You want them to provide "proof" that all of their photos are legitimate? After all, the perfect images just might be the ones that were done right. You'd never know!



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
Normally such composites when released by NASA do not require such photoshopping, but when you have two objects moving relative to each other between color filtered images, heavy editing is required to produce a color photo. Some of the PR photos released from Cassini may have this kind of editing done if they show moons that actually moved noticeably between images, but the way NASA does it is probably much more professional.


AWESOME I about fell off my chair

ngchunter says "...when you have two objects moving relative to each other between color filtered images, heavy editing is required..."

"...Some of the PR photos released from Cassini may have this kind of editing done.."

"..but the way NASA does it is probably much more professional"

priceless gonna screen capture this one

I'll look at the photos later, but I have a few proofs of sloppy editing myself



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join