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.

 

Are NASA Photoshopping Lunar Images?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   


Ive posted an image from the Lunar Reconnaissance orbiter which I found on the Website

Ive highlighted the areas in red which look odd. Do we think this is evidence of a cover up? Or is it just weird camera effects? I haven't come across any other areas like this yet.

Co-ordinates are on the image. Zoomed in as far as possible.




posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ATSecretAgent
 


Good thread.

I believe they are photo shopping lunar images and images from space and our own planet.

What are they trying to hide when they claim there is nothing on the Moon or in space?



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Nah, the satellites, or what ever takes these pictures, take them step by step and then they are being puzzled together by a software to make a map out of them, which obviously doesn't work perfectly.

There are some threads here with better arguements. ^^
edit on 1-5-2011 by Kemal because: spelling* :p



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Photoshop tutorials are available, for free, all over the internet. If you're going to cover # up, at least blend, fix conrast, etc. Or hire a highschooler to do it for you.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
For years and years NASA have blurred and photoshopped images,
Question is why?



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Don't expect to find any real evidence of intelligence from or by NASA. If there are structures on the moon or Mars that the public finds by accident, all it would take is a NASA official to make a statement that the object is a natural formation - light refraction - JPEG artifact - pixel distortion -etc, etc.
After that, all outside opinions are dismissed.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
If the computer piecing the images together is doing them in sequence, then one would imagine the resulting image map to be free from artifacts and odd spots.
Saying that, I don't know how often images were taken and how quickly they were assembled.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
of course they are! im pretty sure pictures dont come with smudges in them



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Originally posted by Kemal
Nah, the satellites, or what ever takes these pictures, take them step by step and then they are being puzzled together by a software to make a map out of them, which obviously doesn't work perfectly.



This is what I see also. This one picture is made up of many smaller ones and software is used to put them together. I remember Arcsoft had software that you could do this with. Can't remember the exact one.

I do believe that NASA does change some of their pictures or just blur them in spots on purpose to hide objects. I'm not sure that this is one of those.

edit on 1-5-2011 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
It's interesting then how you can only zoom in so far. If the images taken are much smaller, then you would assume the resolution is much higher. Considering you can only zoom into around a 40km region it does make one think that all the good stuff is locked away in someones drawer.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Seems like NASA always has bad cameras on the moon.

"The Moon is a cold, dark, colorless, lifeless place."

Nothing to see here...Keep moving...



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ATSecretAgent
 


If you look at an image that is made of several pieces then you are going to find things like that.

It's the same as looking at a wall and saying that we see the bricks.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
When assembling hundreds or in this case thousands of individual images that obviously were not taken at the same time with the same degree and angle of light where the individual images converge one finds the actual points do not always line up. After all every image is of a curved surface, though ever so slightly. One can do this by hand or the better option is to write a code for a computer program to run the repetitive task, much like writing a Photoshop Action and then Automate the Action linked with an simple Excel data driven Comma Separated Values file (.csv) for a column of data describing changing coordinates. I wrote an Automated program in Photoshop to produce logo files with changing registration numbers from an Excel file I get once a week, to date I have imaged over 90,000 separate logo files, the estimated computer processing time to date I estimate is around just 24 billable hours, before I wrote the Photoshop program the fastest Illustrator was able to produce the logo files by hand was one per minute, or 200 initial files in 200 minutes so the math is easy to figure out that automating is the way to go. Hand manipulation therefore is HIGHLY UNLIKELY!.

Adobe Bridge has automated Photoshop capabilities you can learn about at www.Adobe.com

For all of those residing in the 'anything American or NASA related lies' camp, why don't you examine the Japanese moon mapping satellite capabilities orbiting the moon at just 100 km above the surface collecting data at a (lofty) resolution of 10 meters per pixel!!!! That resolution is incapable of even imaging the Apollo spacecraft left on the moon, but it is a nice tool to project into a 3D software program to view the moon's surface at any angle, altitude, independent of lighting conditions. It maps the altitude changes. Any novice of 3D programs understands the value of these grayscale maps, we have these GIS Topo maps of earth also here

So why don't you bash the Japanese for their obviously inferior mapping resolution?

www.aviationweek.com.../selene041008.xml&headline=Japan%20Previews%20New%20Moon%20Map

selena.sai.msu.ru...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Hmm, I am coming down on the plain old camera effects side of the coin. Oh well. It is fun to try and find stuff that makes you go "hang on a minute..." though.

edit on 1/5/2011 by ATSecretAgent because: (no reason given)


jra

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ATSecretAgent
 


If NASA were photoshopping their images for deceitful purposes, you wouldn't see such obvious traces of it left behind. That would defeat the whole purpose of photoshopping the images in the first place don't you think?

When myself or my wife edit a photo and remove something from it, you wouldn't know something was there unless you saw the original. Anyone competent enough with photoshop can do this. If NASA were photoshopping their images to cover-up or hide things, you wouldn't know it or see traces of it.

As ArMaP and Illustronic pointed out. This is a collection of thousands of images all put together. Not all the images were taken at the same time with the same Sun angle, so not all the images are going to match up perfectly.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
It still doesn't explain the images that NASA released before the advent of Photoshop in 1989!



In 1987, Thomas Knoll, a PhD student at the University of Michigan began writing a program on his Macintosh Plus to display grayscale images on a monochrome display. This program, called Display, caught the attention of his brother John Knoll, an Industrial Light & Magic employee, who recommended Thomas turn it into a fully-fledged image editing program. Thomas took a six month break from his studies in 1988 to collaborate with his brother on the program, which had been renamed ImagePro. Later that year, Thomas renamed his program Photoshop and worked out a short-term deal with scanner manufacturer Barneyscan to distribute copies of the program with a slide scanner; a "total of about 200 copies of Photoshop were shipped" this way.
During this time, John traveled to Silicon Valley and gave a demonstration of the program to engineers at Apple and Russell Brown, art director at Adobe. Both showings were successful, and Adobe decided to purchase the license to distribute in September 1988. While John worked on plug-ins in California, Thomas remained in Ann Arbor writing program code.

Photoshop 1.0 was released in 1990 for Macintosh exclusively.


I have been hired to use Photoshop since 1989 during it's BETA version because of the Classical Illustration training I had before I even knew how to turn on a computer. To me digital editing is just another brush on my palette, how one moves the brush is where expertise lives.

Hence, my forum persona.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Man.

I promise, If I ever become a scientist.
My life long dream will to log on to ATS, prove i'm a scientist.

Make a thread, and just take a dump on every conspiracy theorist.

How would you people feel if a credited scientist just sh***ed on everything you held to be true?


lmao.
I'd love to see that.
I bet you idiots would think I was payed off by the government.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DuceizBack
Man.

I promise, If I ever become a scientist.
My life long dream will to log on to ATS, prove i'm a scientist.

Make a thread, and just take a dump on every conspiracy theorist.

How would you people feel if a credited scientist just sh***ed on everything you held to be true?


lmao.
I'd love to see that.
I bet you idiots would think I was payed off by the government.


Scientists do go through that themselves.....they are called theories and a many of them have been shat on by their own respected peers. Reason being....not the proper proof to back up their claim, and especially if they cannot produce the same results using the same methods as the presenter. This is why science strives to prove everything using stringent methods so they can prove without a doubt.

Thank you for pointing that out to us, welcome to the scientific world.
edit on 1-5-2011 by topherman420 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by topherman420

Originally posted by DuceizBack
Man.

I promise, If I ever become a scientist.
My life long dream will to log on to ATS, prove i'm a scientist.

Make a thread, and just take a dump on every conspiracy theorist.

How would you people feel if a credited scientist just sh***ed on everything you held to be true?


lmao.
I'd love to see that.
I bet you idiots would think I was payed off by the government.


Scientists do go through that themselves.....they are called theories and a many of them have been shat on by their own respected peers. Reason being....not the proper proof to back up their claim, and especially if they cannot produce the same results using the same methods as the presenter. This is why science strives to prove everything using stringent methods so they can prove without a doubt.

Thank you for pointing that out to us, welcome to the scientific world.
edit on 1-5-2011 by topherman420 because: (no reason given)


How dare you compare a scientific theory and a conspiracy theory created by nut jobs.


Conspiracy theorist, and rationalist are nothing alike.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DuceizBack

Originally posted by topherman420

Originally posted by DuceizBack
Man.

I promise, If I ever become a scientist.
My life long dream will to log on to ATS, prove i'm a scientist.

Make a thread, and just take a dump on every conspiracy theorist.

How would you people feel if a credited scientist just sh***ed on everything you held to be true?


lmao.
I'd love to see that.
I bet you idiots would think I was payed off by the government.


Scientists do go through that themselves.....they are called theories and a many of them have been shat on by their own respected peers. Reason being....not the proper proof to back up their claim, and especially if they cannot produce the same results using the same methods as the presenter. This is why science strives to prove everything using stringent methods so they can prove without a doubt.

Thank you for pointing that out to us, welcome to the scientific world.
edit on 1-5-2011 by topherman420 because: (no reason given)


How dare you compare a scientific theory and a conspiracy theory created by nut jobs.


Conspiracy theorist, and rationalist are nothing alike.


I compare the two since they always try to compete with it and fail. And Im not entirely sure that I was mentioning anything in regards to rationalism, its kind of hard to test philosophy with scientific method.




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join