Zeeman Crater - NASA editing at it's finest?

page: 11
65
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 




Now let's see what India's Chandrayaan comes up with. I believe a detailed hi-res Moon atlas is under preparation and would be out by the year end.


And why we will expect that the "space owners/club" will leak valid information about extraterrestrial life? Are hi-res Moon atlas from the new member India will show us the real moon? I dont think so. Maybe if we have some lucky they will forget to photoshop some place.
edit on 18-11-2010 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by RUSSO
reply to post by The Shrike
 


So, how blurred are your eyes? Go see a ophthalmologist and buy some glasses to see if it solves your lack of perception


Could you type a little clearer, please? What's an opf....?



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
Oh! How the believers love to bash NASA! Geeez!
Rocks are rocks, no matter the spin put on it!

Then why does NASA call them BLUE BERRIES?

They aren't actually blue! It's FALSE color. No one can get to see the exact color on Mars. The TRUE color cannot be shown with the present crop of cameras - only an approximation. Turn the L2 camera's saturation up and you'd get RED 'blue berries'!


So what's the big deal? There are no 'blueberries' on Mars like one finds on Earth!


edit on 18-11-2010 by OrionHunterX because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
The TRUE color cannot be shown with the present crop of cameras - only an approximation.


Seems you need a lesson in primary colors of light... but I don't have the time



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
Oh! How the believers love to bash NASA! Geeez!
Rocks are rocks, no matter the spin put on it!

Then why does NASA call them BLUE BERRIES?

They aren't actually blue! It's FALSE color. No one can get to see the exact color on Mars. The TRUE color cannot be shown with the present crop of cameras - only an approximation. Turn the L2 camera's saturation up and you'd get RED 'blue berries'!


So what's the big deal? There are no 'blueberries' on Mars like one finds on Earth!


edit on 18-11-2010 by OrionHunterX because: (no reason given)


No colour cameras sent to Mars??
Did this mission start in 1960??
You have to wonder why they would spend x billion dollars and only send a b/w camera..
But I'd have to ask if they can't film in colour then why does the Rover have the test colour samples on it??



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
But I'd have to ask if they can't film in colour then why does the Rover have the test colour samples on it??


True Color Images from Mars Rovers
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
The TRUE color cannot be shown with the present crop of cameras - only an approximation.

Seems you need a lesson in primary colors of light... but I don't have the time

Nope! Not really!


We all know or should know that "true" RGB wavelengths are something that cannot be nailed down to a definite value, the response is more of a curve. There is no absolute "true" because color responses vary depending on observer and other factors such as lighting and atmospheric conditions.. The average human response for RGB is a given however, and these values are.. Red 650nm +/-, Green 510nm+/-, and Blue 445nm-475nm +/-.

None of the filters provided by Pancam are exactly equivalent to the actual and normally applied RGB values, nor monitor colors. This being said, it is not purely a "true color" camera, even though the filters do fall absolutely near the accepted values.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Why, do you not understood what i typed?

Are you a functional illiterate? Sorry if you are, type errors happens

edit on 19-11-2010 by RUSSO because: misspelling, sorry shrike




posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



True Color Images from Mars Rovers


Yes. Very nice, eh. Apparent colors can vary greatly, under differing conditions of illumination/technology that reproduce them, for ultimate human viewing.


Here is a True Color Image from Earth, courtesy of Kodos and Kang (from their wedding album, on their honeymoon to the Third Rock):



Can you name that (apparently) very red-sand desert that exists here on Earth?? I know I can't (and they aren't telling, either. They value their privacy dearly, and don't want autograph seekers and Paparazzi crowding into their private getaway......).



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
[redacted - wrong thread]
edit on 19-11-2010 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
We all know or should know that "true" RGB wavelengths are something that cannot be nailed down to a definite value, the response is more of a curve.


Picking Nits... just like Herr Weedwacker with his childish attempt at humor. But this thread isn't the color thread. DO try to stay focused

OH BTW That deserts name that you cannot identify?

RED SAND DUNE KNOWN AS 'BIG RED' IN THE SIMPSON DESERT, BIRDSVILLE, QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA

dwpicture.com.au...

Seems you are not as smart as you like to believe




edit on 19-11-2010 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Well...

My point should have been obvious. Bashing NASA over a few (very localized) photos on Mars is silly. (As the conversation diverged that direction...) IN addition, same with these other claims of "altering" photos.
of the Moon. Sometimes it looks as simple as compression artifacts at best, and other reasons, scanning issues, etc. In some cases, (not here, but in some less reputable sites) intentional "dis-info" and tweaking by the ones who make these claims about NASA ... have caused a great deal of confusion, it seems....and pulled in those who are gullible to such fantastic claims. I mean, really IF there was "something" to cover up, I would think it would be far less obvious?? Looks amateurish. Makes no sense.

This thread's premise is, after all, about NASA "editing" ... implying some sort of "deceit".... I submit that that accusation has been overblown, for reasons that escape me.

We can see so many examples of incredible variety, right here on Earth...especially when it concerns color. Yet, on our (very small samples) of other worlds' photos, when there is no actual Human eye to judge, we work with what we have.

Anyway, speaking of sand, whether "red" or otherwise:

izismile.com...

Diversity is all around us.......



"color" is very subjective, as we all have probably experienced. So,



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
My point should have been obvious.


Yes it was... confuse the issue... distract from what is the key question



I mean, really IF there was "something" to cover up, I would think it would be far less obvious?? Looks amateurish. Makes no sense.


It does IF the cover up is on a grand scale and they 'let' us see the obvious fudges just to keep us busy. The real stuff is covered up with algorithms created by Sandia labs... algorithms that contain codes to show the original data... algorithms that are TREASON if you even possess a copy...
But then that's a whole new thread
Though I recall I posted that in that old Clementine color thread a few years back



This thread's premise is, after all, about NASA "editing" ... implying some sort of "deceit".... I submit that that accusation has been overblown, for reasons that escape me.


Well come on now... even the Skeptics have acknowledged NASA edits pictures, including YOU, to 'make them prettier' as you put it. So why is it such a stretch for you to understand that an odd structure in the photo might ruin the 'effect'?






Yet, on our (very small samples) of other worlds' photos, when there is no actual Human eye to judge, we work with what we have.


Several hundred THOUSAND perhaps even over a million from scads of missions all over the solar system... I would say we have a lot to work with. And if you say that none of that is showing what we would ACTUALLY see if we were out there... then is it not stupid to keep spending all that money to take worthless pictures?

Yet you keep posting images of Earth.. as if saying those cameras are good enough ( and yeah they are sometimes edited to make them 'prettier' too
)



"color" is very subjective, as we all have probably experienced.


That is a red herring.. constantly flogged by debunkers. SANE people understand that we as humans have a STANDARD color chart that is agreed upon by rational people. We use that chart to tune our TV sets and computers to STANDARD colors.

As long as people like you continue to assert that a NASA Mars picture that shows a blue patch as hot pink is anywhere close to reality, the issue will never die



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
It does IF the cover up is on a grand scale and they 'let' us see the obvious fudges just to keep us busy. The real stuff is covered up with algorithms created by Sandia labs... algorithms that contain codes to show the original data... algorithms that are TREASON if you even possess a copy...
But then that's a whole new thread

As I have said in other occasions, I doubt those algorithms exist, at least as they are talked about, something that can change an image without leaving noticeable traces.

I'm sure we will get there, eventually, but for now I think the image tampering, if exists, it's done by humans, or at least reviewed and retouched by humans.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I'm sure we will get there, eventually, but for now I think the image tampering, if exists, it's done by humans, or at least reviewed and retouched by humans.


Hmmm well maybe right... You realize ofcourse that now I will have to dig that old info up again?


But that is okay... I should have saved it on my site anyway and its lost in my unsorted files... somewhere... so who knows, after 5 years I may find new data as well... I usually do


I am sure I can ask my military contacts if the technology exists and when it was first used as a staring point



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Hurry on up with that info Zorgon - I'm hooked!

I once commented negatively (can't remember quite when/where, but it was here on ATS) about Pegasus, having viewed one page on your site before making a judgment. I'm sorry I did that (I'm in a confessional mood tonight, see thread in Gray Area
...) I've revisited the Pegasus site several times recently and love the work you guys do. Keep it up!


Fly/ Noah.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


One question:

Why Nasa will bother to be perfectionist?

The same elite who control the nasa control the MSM.

They need not give information if they not want to. They have a massive propaganda machine to make most people believe in what they want. The greatest course of mankind are the controlled mass media. Nothing will never change without free press AND free speach.

If we want to change something is in there that we must focus. A new fall of the Bastille, a modern one, a fall of the MSM owners.
edit on 19-11-2010 by RUSSO because: add



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
edit on 16-7-2013 by skyblueworld because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
65
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join