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.

 

More and better evidence of NASA photo manipulation

page: 1
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Hi there,

Many of you wrote me and asked for a sequel of "Evidence of NASA photo manipulation", so here it is. It took quite a while for the completion of this video as I only wanted to show you those images which I am 100% sure of that there is something wrong with them.

This video contains more and better evidence of deliberate manipulation of Apollo images.
Most photos I have given the exact URL to, others you may have to Google for as NASA
replaced them with better "edited" versions and I cannot recall where I found the original.
(many years ago)

Not only samples of manipulated photos can be seen as I have also analyzed a couple photos NASA claims to be "black, or blank". According to NASA these "black" images do not contain anything interesting to see. When NASA says that these "black photos" are of no interest, than alarmbells start ringing in my ears and guess what? It seems that what NASA considers as black is not always (entirely) black ...lol



This is just a very small number and a lot more "exposures" will follow soon.

I hope you enjoy the video.

Greetz,

1967sander




posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
nice work. lets hang back and wait for the official BS moonlanding crowd to come in and protect their dying agency of lies lol
edit on 6-1-2012 by jazzguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
it just seems like you are distorting the images
i dont see any nasa manipulation only clear images
couldnt this technigue be used on any image to show the same distortions



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by 1967sander
 


Do you also go by the member names of Arianna and Zorgon?

Do you have a sight more based in "Hope" than reality?
edit on 1/6/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Well, that was pretty interesting to say the least.
Especially, the end of it.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by 1967sander
 


i got to his claim that ELA [ error level ananysis ] revealed a building and gave up the guy has no clue



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Very interesting none the less. I'm going to get that software and mess with some photos and see what results I can get. Got me curious. Good vid regardless.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
very intresting ! I think nasa are proffesional bull#ters personally, i think there is a secret space programme going on, much like i belive there is a government behind the government. . .. .



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by 1967sander
 


i got to his claim that ELA [ error level ananysis ] revealed a building and gave up the guy has no clue


Maybe you should head over to HuffPost where one liner comments are acceptable. This is what it says above the ATS comment box "You are an experienced contributor to ATS. Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter."

/rant

I, on the other hand, watched the entire video and this was the pic that interested me most. The manipulated flag... I showed the time stamp so you can fast forward to it.



....and the black spots that look like a digital paint brush was used. Cool stuff Sander!



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Ah thinks youse is onto something there.....................good show!
2nd



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Now where is the part again where you analyse the original images? Oh yeah forgot, it doesn't excist



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


hey instead of critiques of my post size try addressing the issue i raise ie "finding " buildings with ELA



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by 1967sander
 


Thanks for your video. I'm a believer of NASA picture manipulations and found yet again your video very nteresting. I have just a suggestion: Why not debunking the de-bunkers by analyzing some earthly landscape photos, to show the difference, or else you/we will only hear how these artifacts occur when you manipulate these photos with your special software. Juuuuuust a suggestion.

Thanks for sharing in any case.

StringTh



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jazzguy
nice work. lets hang back and wait for the official BS moonlanding crowd to come in and protect their dying agency of lies lol
edit on 6-1-2012 by jazzguy because: (no reason given)


I'll be honest with you I'm one of those that never believed we went to the moon.
BUT I'm open minded enough to appreciate this video.
and now I'm wondering if we did go to the moon after all, really. (I'm serious don't bash me now...)

THE point being that either way, NASA is hiding a lot from us.

nice post and video sander, S&F



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Very enjoyable thank you



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I do a fair bit of photo editing at my job and the discrepancies that you show here are quite obvious indications of processing and cleanup. That much is pretty clear cut. That said, I am still not ready to break out my torch and pitchfork.

Often times creating a photo series for public or academic consumption entails cleaning or 'dust busting' as they call it in the industry, and it is not as nefarious or as uncommon as one might think. Any photographer worth their metal does this and I would contend that very few professional photographers can take a perfect series that wont require some post processing. All the same, another great video S&F for the work you put into this.

Can you provide a little more information about the software you are using?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Very nice. I love the innovations being made in reconstruction. Very revealing to say the least. I remember seeing one of these reconstructed pics. It was hilarious you could see the scotch tape marks all over the background. "Nope, nope, nothing to see here move right along."
Nasa will prolly stop publishing photos altogether given the sophistication of these reconstruct programs.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by StringTh
 



Thanks for your video. I'm a believer of NASA picture manipulations and found yet again your video very nteresting. I have just a suggestion: Why not debunking the de-bunkers by analyzing some earthly landscape photos, to show the difference, or else you/we will only hear how these artifacts occur when you manipulate these photos with your special software. Juuuuuust a suggestion.


We have suggested this on every one of 1967Sander's near identical threads and he has never gotten around to doing it. There must be a reason for that:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I and several others debunked some most of your claims in the first moon anomalies thread you did. I will of course make an effort to go through all of your 'evidence.'

So, your first image, as17-134-20382, you disingenuously used a low resolution .jpeg even though an extremely high resolution .tiff image was available: www.archive.org...

In approximately 25 seconds I found the highest quality version of that photo and ran it through a photo editing program. Guess what? No smudging of the black background. No abnormal artifacts of any kind.

This image was gamma exposed by 300%, and resized 50% saved as a .jpeg (documenting what I actually did to the image):

imageshack.us...

If you're claiming only that the image you checked was altered, then you're correct. If, however, you're claiming that the image was altered to hide something, you're wrong.
edit on 1/6/2012 by NuminousCosmos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by clowdstalker
I do a fair bit of photo editing at my job and the discrepancies that you show here are quite obvious indications of processing and cleanup. That much is pretty clear cut. That said, I am still not ready to break out my torch and pitchfork.

Often times creating a photo series for public or academic consumption entails cleaning or 'dust busting' as they call it in the industry, and it is not as nefarious or as uncommon as one might think. Any photographer worth their metal does this and I would contend that very few professional photographers can take a perfect series that wont require some post processing. All the same, another great video S&F for the work you put into this.

Can you provide a little more information about the software you are using?


Only problem is that nasa claims to provide raw photos, but yet at least some of them appears to have been altered.




top topics



 
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join