NASA Caught Once Again Messing Around With Pictures From The Moon

reply to post by Plan2exist18


Exactly what is 'CLASSIFIED' about the moon, (besides your imagination)?

Shadows on the moon due to the high reflectivity of the surface in light, are generally black, with zero digital or analogue information to be extracted from shadow areas, (because of the exposure necessary to no burn out the highlights). Photography 101 stuff, high school class. If when YOU manipulate the exposure in a digital software program, you will uncover pixelation artifacts of the compression process of placing the images on the internet, you should take your plight up with

Credit: NASA Goddard/Arizona State University

if you have a problem with their processing or the data they receive from the LRO. Not attempting to get to the source and bringing this crap here proves you are either disingenuous and know you are just trying to pull chains, or you only believe what supports your already predetermined fantasies.

reply to post by Illustronic


Pixelation artifacts is the new tool nasa uses to explain everything. Soon, after repeating this lie so much, all we will end up believing. Repeat a lie 1000 times and it eventually becomes truth.

You see when you get closer to the source of the image processing, Arizona State University (that's what asu.edu stands for), I don't get the image artifacts that you posted. Artifacts, none the less though. (Image is scaled down for better framing).

Sigh...

Can we Please stop the personal sniping and off topic posts.

How many Moon threads do we have now ?

Let's try to keep the conversation centered around the specific 'anomaly' in the OP.

And Please make use of the 'Reply To : ' feature rather than quoting huge posts of images.

Oh and......... stop the personal sniping.

TIA

Originally posted by RUSSO
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d3f3154b4b70.jpg[/atsimg]

Looking at how that dark area has one side perfectly parallel to the side of the photo, and that the shadow of the central peak also has more horizontal stripes, I think it's a problem with the photo and not "image tampering".

Do you remember this episode?

Yes, and it was explained how that happened.

But You Seek Evidence in October to support your preconceptions and dismiss everything else. In your view Tampered That image is nothing. Like this:



or this:

Those look like the famous problems with the old Clementine image browser. If you look at the real photos instead of the mosaic created on the fly you will see that there isn't any image for that area, that's why that area (and others that look like it) appear blurred, the image browser was trying to create an image with the data from the edges of the surrounding images.

PS: as this image is not yet on the PDS, I cannot get a better image. Even the TIFF file available from their site is just a 8 bit file.

reply to post by Jbird


That specific anomaly I PROVED to be not a NASA anomaly, it was someone else's digital processing and not asu.edu. It's right fricking there!

The OP was attacking, not me. Did you read his thread title? Duh!?

reply to post by ArMaP


I used the source, now what?

I also specifically showed the source, unlike the conspiracists, they never show an artifact source, but I can trace where it was from, and it wasn't the SOURCE.

reply to post by Ahmose


Thankyou Ahmoose, you have restored my faith in the belief that some people DONT understand sarcasm.
Congratulations, you win....

Tho you have us all worried now with your propensity to violent and cruel suggestions....we may have to watch you closer.

No wonder so many wars are fueled with hatred, by modern man..you have shown a prime example!!!. Well done.
Off to Afgani we will send you......You Must be American??

Take a chill pill bro, and read some Mark Twain, the master of sarcasm. .

reply to post by Illustronic


Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Could you please rephrase it?

Thanks in advance.

Everybody knows that NASA and the government are hiding their involvement with Decepticons on the moon. Not only that, but ELEnin/Nibiru is actually Unicron. Prepare to bow down to your new overlords The Decepticons!!!

reply to post by ArMaP


OK, I was lazy, and simply just manipulated 'screen captures' from wms.lroc.asu.edu... The M162350671 is their native tiff file loaded into their Flash viewer, so I finally downloaded that source tiff file to see why we have some shadows remain black and others lighten when adjusted, (I have no answer for that) except that it is from the ASU imaging assembly team. As shown below are things we can point out that to me says its the team errors in assembling the mosaic images, which requires a lot of man work to merge and line up. Note on the top image a smudge that 'looks like' a sort of fingerprint. The horizontal 'anomaly' goes across the entire image, that tells me it was assembled from different sources, these are taken from a camera in orbit, while it is MOVING, quite fast.

The tiff they offer for download is over 200 MB, the pixel dimension is 21,467 by 9,860 pixels. What you are viewing are extreme reductions of the tiff file in the Camera Raw open format in Photoshop. What doesn't show up in that tiff file are those large square artifacts shown on the previous pages.

This only proves that many artifacts COME FROM the various size reductions and compression while saved and uploaded to an internet server.
If you can make out the controls on the right of the top two images, you can see the contrast and brightness sliders are set to maximum, the bottom image is not adjusted at all.





If you haven't seen this link you might find interesting reading. Also at this 'NASA Watch link you can find some interesting comments from internet warriors, who I don't have the credentials to, but some of the 40 comments may lend some information you may or may not be aware of.


P.S. You will see .PNG on the files, this is what my screen capture saves as, as I was screen capturing work in Camera Raw.

reply to post by Illustronic

I guess I'm a little "slow" today, but I still don't understand why you said those things in an answer to my post, I was only regretting that we don't have (yet) access to the files with which they work instead of copies in TIF format.

Now, some things I think could help understand the situation:

- The image from the opening post is made from two different photos, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has two Narrow Angle Cameras, parallel to each other and pointing slightly to the side, so the photo from the left camera ends where the photo from the right camera starts (with an overlapping of some 130 pixels), and they can make wider photos, but those images are made with two photos from two different cameras.

- Each camera has a sensor with 5064 pixels, from which the left most 39 pixels and right most 21 pixels are "masked" for use as "dark reference", so each camera can take photos, at most, 5004 pixels wide.

- The length of the photo is limited by the amount of memory on the cameras (256MB), the maximum being 52,224 pixels (or, more correctly, lines, as each photo is made from a sequence of lines of pixels, the sensors have only one line, they are not rectangular as those on common cameras).

- The original photos are 12 bits per pixel images, so an 8 bits per pixel TIFF will not show all the shades of grey that the original photo had.

Edit: Source of the information above.

Originally posted by Manhater

Even I can do better photo shopping than that. Looks like a 2 year old scribbled in the black.

Which IMO does not lend support to the NASA-airbrushing-out-signs-of-extraterrestrial-presence theory.

If it was a top secret cover up program, would they not have a crack team of experts working on the pics?

It looks more like astronomer-with-no-particular-skills-in-photoshpping-having-a-bad-day-at-work.

Originally posted by RUSSO
reply to post by Illustronic

 

Pixelation artifacts is the new tool nasa uses to explain everything. Soon, after repeating this lie so much, all we will end up believing. Repeat a lie 1000 times and it eventually becomes truth.

Well have YOU done any digital imaging yourself have you used photoshop to edit images do you have an intrerest in photography OR digital imaging.

There are hundreds of threads on here that take pictures from NASA etc and zoom and zoom and zoom until you see NO DETAIL and straight edges,those straight edges then become supposed evidence of walls, roads, buildings etc although people here seem to forget that pictures in digital form are made of pixels which have STRAIGHT EDGES

Then you have sites like the living moon which have images like this with no detail



They then get the kids crayons out and colour in what they think they see.



This then becomes a spaceship

As pointed out by others if you dont have any expertise about a subject educate yourself a little before you accuse people of anything!