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.
Originally posted by v0ice0freas0n
Anybody using photographs taken in a different time period in comparison against modern photographs as evidence for change in "color temperature" of the atmosphere has no basic grasp on the development arc of color photography. I am here simply to evince the fact that vintage and dated film formats read color in drastically different ways than modern film or digital cameras do. It is not that "the sky was so blue in 1915...," it is simply the fact that dated film is not as readily capable of reproducing an accurate color image. Depending on the specific film type, I would be happy to discuss the process by which the color is achieved and why it is in fact a distortion of what was seen instead of evidence of huge shifts in the color temperature of the atmosphere. (which in truth I would blame on the fact that the world's population has nearly tripled since the forties; the sullying of our atmosphere most definitely increased in kind).
Originally posted by v0ice0freas0n
Absolutely! That was 40 years ago, technology changes in the bilnk of an eye, not the roll of your wheelchair.
Originally posted by SaberTruth
See, this is what I was talking about with moving goalposts: "Here's a picture." .... "That's photoshopped!".... "It was taken 20 years ago and is an original Kodak print." ... "Oh, that was XYZ film from an ABC camera, which overemphasized blue, and probably used a filter." ... etc. etc. etc.
Originally posted by Uncinus
Where's the picture?
Originally posted by Bonified Ween
Yeah here's for all the "armchair debunkers". A basic news report from a basic news station. So please explain to me why parts per million of aluminum and barium are in rain water? Nature produces these highly toxic metals in the rain now these days?
edit on 13-5-2011 by Bonified Ween because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by SaberTruth
And as I said, but apparently not clearly enough, 500 pictures wouldn't be enough. And by the time I dig them out of photo albums and scan them, you'll already have excuses queued up. Sheesh.
Originally posted by Bonified Ween
Yeah here's for all the "armchair debunkers". A basic news report from a basic news station. So please explain to me why parts per million of aluminum and barium are in rain water? Nature produces these highly toxic metals in the rain now these days?
Yes, I did make corrections to my first report, which originally aired almost 2-years ago now… after quickly realizing my very embarrassing mistake. I was not happy with myself. Unfortunately, the first version of my report got out to the internet before I could make the correction(s), and the wrong version is shown repeatedly.
Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by Essan
So your mind is closed then ?