NASA Photo Tampering, but oops, I think they forgot something.

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
First off I wanna say that this image is huge, and I took it to windows paint, and put captions on it, and pointed things out with arrows, and circled something. Then I uploaded it, and posted it here at ATS, but the image just wouldn't go it's actually size, and you couldn't see the item in question, so, we'll do it like this insted.... and here's the link of the photo.

Link

Now follow my directions.

1. Open it in paint
2. Get the little paint can icon on paint, and click the white ink.
3. Click it on the sky.... boom. All white. it should'nt be. Tampering.
4. Look all the way on the left hand side of the photo and follow from left to right, the LAND horrizon (not the mounds). About 2" from left to right, you see in the distance, a white something or other.

Looks like a anteana, or a power line. Or tower if far enough away. On the ground on the photo, you can see instuments with white poles on it, but the are not very long. You wouldn't see it from that far is that was what it is. ALSO, you see NO footprints going anywhere in that direction.

NASA oversight, or something else?




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrnBdry

3. Click it on the sky.... boom. All white. it should'nt be. Tampering.

Why not? You just used the paint bucket feature to paint that part of the picture white....I don't get it.How about a little explanation for those of us who are admittedly, not in the know as far as actual photo analysis... Why is it weird that when you use the paint bucket on MS Paint, and paint a certain area white, it turns white?


Looks like a anteana, or a power line. Or tower if far enough away. On the ground on the photo, you can see instuments with white poles on it, but the are not very long. You wouldn't see it from that far is that was what it is. ALSO, you see NO footprints going anywhere in that direction.



Yes the astronauts often have tools spread around in their working environment as you can see from this picture, when you scroll towards the right. How can you say that we could not see it from this far away when you don't know how far away it is? That is pure speculation on your part.

As for the foot prints... There is more than one way they could have gotten to that spot you know... They do have a rover in that picture, they could have easily been driving around and walked to that location from an area that you do not see in the picture...

Sorry, but I just don't get it....

That said, yes, NASA has admitted to editing their photos. It's no secret at all. There was a fuss over a particular photo being edited last year. NASA (Or more specifically, the woman who edited it) even made a statement about it and everything.

Check it out here.

www.news.com.au...

So yeah... NASA has edited photos in the past and they will do so in the future... They have even said so them selves...



edit on 7-2-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by BrnBdry
 


I only followed the link, didn't open it in paint, and it looks like bad CGI from a mid-90s sci-fi movie. Where is this pic from? did they use it as some sort of promotional art or something? it looks too obvious, even with absolutely ZERO close inspection.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
There are A LOT of tampering evidences in that picture. Question is, is this the official/original picture or just a picture someone piece together for showing purposes. Looking at all the "cross hairs" one can definitely see all the mess.
edit on 7-2-2011 by innocenttdreams because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Because of the absence of atmosphere, the sky is VERY dark in comparison with the surface.

Also, they would not have walked in the direction of the antenna that is off to the left. They have a moon buggy which they had assembeled earlier & had been driving around for a while.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Yeah, it looks like a tank of some kind possibly. No tracks, how did it get there? Also to note, how small is the light source in the pic? If you look closely, everything on the left hand side's shadow leans to the left, while everything on the right side of the pic's shadow leads to the right. It's as if the light source is very low, close, and exactly in the middle of the pic. As small as the moon is compared to Earth, I would think the shadows would all lead the same way in the picture, still. Just looked a little odd to me. Even stranger in this picture is the man's shadow on the left hand side. How is it projected forward if the light source making all of the other shadows is coming from the front? Am I totally wrong here? Or does this seem like it is a set with more than one light source? The shadows in this make no sense to me. S+F. Nice thread.
edit on 2/7/2011 by FoJAk because: (no reason given)
edit on 2/7/2011 by FoJAk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FoJAk
 


This is a panarama shot made up of several photos.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by BrnBdry
 


I did what you said to do in paint and I am amazed.
It worked!

I investigated the photo a bit myself.

See the lens flare in the center of the photo where the sun should be? Well, the refraction tells me that is from a huge floodlight...not the sun.

Stars and flags for you bud.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by FoJAk
 


This is a panarama shot made up of several photos.



I agree, it looks like a panorama shot of an extensive area made up of multiple pictures. You can see all the blending involved especially the 'cross hairs'. It's tampered and the picture is just for viewing pleasure.
edit on 7-2-2011 by innocenttdreams because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
...you guys are aware this is more than one picture put together to give a "panoramic" view, right?

I see no "obvious" signs of tampering



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Bartibog
 


Exactly,
the lighting didn't make sense to me either.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by innocenttdreams
 


So, does that mean that the different pictures would show different angles of shadowing from the sun? Since the shadows are projected from both the back and the the front though, wouldn't that mess with the whole "dark side of the moon" theory. I mean to ask, if these were all different pictures put together of the same area, the sun did AT LEAST a whole 180 degrees around the moon right?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
...you guys are aware this is more than one picture put together to give a "panoramic" view, right?

I see no "obvious" signs of tampering


Yes, so the originals that made up the panorama should be available on NASA'a site..
Best someone chech there before jumping to conclusions..



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Well, for those that say the sky SHOULD turn all white, you are wrong. There will always be SOME black left over. Example, the rock on the left has black spots. Click on them with the ink can..... that what the sky should look like.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Link to source images:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Wondering if this 'aerial' is part of the ALSEP package:

Zoom in on the object:


Image from Apollo 14 showing similar shaped object:




edit on 7/2/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Firstly, the photos were not taken at the same time. Secondly, they were even probably not taken in exactly the same place. The photographer took one picture, turned around a little, took another picture and so on until he had completed the set.

That is why at one part you can see his shadow and at another part you can see lens flare from the sun.

When they got all the photos back on earth they used an application that attempts to join all the images together into one large panorama. It does this by a mixture of distorting the edges of the pictures and morphing together the boundaries of the colour areas so they seem to match.

This means that perspective is "broken" and that light direction is also inconsistent.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by BrnBdry
 


For Pete's sake!

As pointed out, they are panoramas...so of course they've been manipulated, digitally!!

Here is a link to a main page, to view some others:

www.lpi.usra.edu...


How did YOU think they were made? How would you do the same kind of thing, today on Earth...using film cameras, firstly. FILM photos, with negatives, the whole nine yards. Take multiple shots, in a panorama...then, scan them digitally, to digitally "stitch" them together.

What do YOU think the results will be then??
edit on 7 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by backinblack
 


Link to source images:

www.lpi.usra.edu...


Thanks Chad...19 pics? That's a big panorama...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


The atmosphere softens shadows on earth, so there is some slight colour in shadows. But on the moon, with no atmosphere and a single high intensity (unfiltered through an atomosphere) light source like the sun, the shadows would look absolutely black.

The difference between a lit & therefore visible surface and an unlit & therefore very dark area on the moon exceeds the dynamic range which film can record.

So the black is 'ultra black', there would be no edge effects & so when you use MS Paint to replace black with white, there are no edges or "jaggies".

See!



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
For those that need help seeing...







new topics
top topics
 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join