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: 3
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


legality of re-imaging would need to be applied by the courts, and if it does not look the same as an original who cares? I don't care if Sanders is trying one way or another to say that there was or wasn't a Moon landing. What he/she did say that Nasa has manipulated pictures for whatever reason, I don't think there is any doubt about that. Could be mundane, could be concealment, maybe both and at the same time.




posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


In response to Illustronic & PsykoOps,

ASU has added copyright restriction to the images by stating "Arizona State University retains the rights to all image and any derived products ..."

What part of "may not be copied, reverse engineered, decompiled, disassembled, translated, modified or have derivative works made of the imagery, in whole or in part" do you not understand?

Conversely, the standard NASA policy states:


Using NASA Imagery and Linking to NASA Web Sites10.13.05 Still Images, Audio Files and Video
NASA still images, audio files and video generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video and audio material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits and Internet Web pages. This general permission extends to personal Web pages. Source Source: www.nasa.gov...


and


NASA Web sites are not copyrighted, and may be linked to from other Web sites, including individuals' personal Web sites, without explicit permission from NASA. Source: www.nasa.gov...


It is a point of fact : the general permissions traditionally stipulated by "NASA" for the use of "NASA" imagery have been transformed into a restrictive acceptible use licensing scheme exclusive to "NASA/JSC/ASU" .


edit on 1/6/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: tags

edit on 1/6/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: taggggs



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


I do not make any profit by making these enhancements. I do not sell them, do not promote them as being original NASA images either. What I did is showing image manipulation. Some people say I should use the tiff files. Why?
I use what NASA offers.When NASA presents a JPG file than I expect a not manipulated image. This is clearly not the case. You can also manipulate TIF files without anyone knowing. There are special programmes to perform these manipulations. So the only ... and I repeat ONLY way to show that images have been tampered with is by analysis of JPG files.

The original files will never be released. They are declared confidential by the US Department Of Defense.

Greetz,

Sander


edit on 6-1-2012 by 1967sander because: c



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by 1967sander
 



The original files will never be released. They are declared confidential by the US Department Of Defense.


And your source for this is...?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


If you look carefully at the colours created by the ELA website after an image analysis than you should know looking at my pictures that I use a totally different program. I do not use this or any other website. My software is experimental.
edit on 6-1-2012 by 1967sander because: cv



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



It is a point of fact : the general permissions traditionally stipulated by "NASA" for the use of "NASA" imagery have been transformed into a restrictive acceptible use licensing scheme exclusive to "NASA/JSC/ASU" .


No, the material may still be used under "fair use," specifically for educational and research purposes. ASU feels justified in being more specific about the crediting process because of the "value added" by that institution.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by 1967sander
 



My software is experimental.


By that, do you mean that you are the only one who has it?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Did anyone ever consider that he might know about his job (if I understood right) better than us reading manuals and articles about different software and trying to reason with him?

It was mentioned correctly before that JPEG compressions are predictable and easy to spot. That's why I asked the OP to produce an ELA on a earthly landscape, or better, I (or anyone else) can provide you with a manipulated picture (JPEG) and you can tell me (us) where it was touched up. This should silence the critics regarding compressed JPEGs.

Care to do it Sander?

StringTh



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1967sander
 



My software is experimental.


By that, do you mean that you are the only one who has it?


I think I remember him saying in previous threads that this version he uses is in a testing phase and not out in the public, unless you are licensed or have plenty of cash.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by StringTh
 


Yes, Sander uses software designed to enhance three dimensional MRI scans of human livers.

NASA images of the moon are not classified. Like I've said before, I have seen 2nd generation prints from the original negatives about 15 years ago. I was young, but I can tell you there were no pieces of tape, digital masking, or bubble gum on them.

NASA public relations edits images for public consumption. Most laymen do not want to see unedited, askew, or under exposed images- especially if they feel like their billions of tax dollars should entitle them to high quality gloss print Photographs with a capital P.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NuminousCosmos
 


Thanks for the info. So what is your analysis on his videos?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sitchin
so ..if i'm reading this reading this right ..the op is saying they did land on the moon


yes.
which means I may lean back to my old beliefs thanks to Pinke and NuminousCosmos


this is a great thread, like brainos vs brainos. I don't know diddly squat about photo editing, etc.
edit on 6-1-2012 by horseplay because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1967sander
reply to post by smurfy
 


I do not make any profit by making these enhancements. I do not sell them, do not promote them as being original NASA images either. What I did is showing image manipulation. Some people say I should use the tiff files. Why?
I use what NASA offers.When NASA presents a JPG file than I expect a not manipulated image. This is clearly not the case. You can also manipulate TIF files without anyone knowing. There are special programmes to perform these manipulations. So the only ... and I repeat ONLY way to show that images have been tampered with is by analysis of JPG files.

The original files will never be released. They are declared confidential by the US Department Of Defense.

Greetz,

Sander


edit on 6-1-2012 by 1967sander because: c


Understood, also understood is that there is no detriment to the Apollo landings.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
You know I believe almost everything about ,that there is something on the moon that we humans don't comprehend, and I still appreciate all the work thats done by allot of people who study and try to point out this unbearable secret that lies in front of us. , but will we ever win this cat and mouse game? don't get me wrong, but its a long fight ahead of us.....besides that, what kind of program did you use to unravel this artifact?

Btw great work keep doing it...! S&F
edit on 21/12/2010 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by StringTh
 


My usual method in cases like these is to investigate the first claim mentioned in the video...which I did. I feel that if you're building a case for NASA manipulating images to hide extraterrestrial evidence, then why use images already edited for mass consumption...images that do not contain the kind of detail you would need to prove your case.

Sander, I think you are trying to find something, anything out of the ordinary and I admire your tenacity.

I joined this site because I am curious about the possibility of ETI leaving traces on the moon or Mars-however, I have high standards of evidence and this kind of stuff does not meet it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



It is a point of fact : the general permissions traditionally stipulated by "NASA" for the use of "NASA" imagery have been transformed into a restrictive acceptible use licensing scheme exclusive to "NASA/JSC/ASU" .


No, the material may still be used under "fair use," specifically for educational and research purposes. ASU feels justified in being more specific about the crediting process because of the "value added" by that institution.


No, you are wrong. The traditional "NASA" permissions were more broad, claimed no copyrights and allowed for "fair use".

"NASA/JSC/ASU" has placed stronger language restricting the use of the images.

So when "NASA/JSC/ASU" says ...


"may not be copied, reverse engineered, decompiled, disassembled, translated, modified or have derivative works made of the imagery, in whole or in part"


... they are ipso facto claiming a copyright.


In United States copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work). Source en.wikipedia.org...


Apollo images will always have this stigma attached to them.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I don't know what the problem is but it looks like someone is trying to bring some evidence upfront , and all you talk about is copy writes , why? Its like he almost hit the jackpot.. whats all the fuzz about?

I think this guy really has something that needs attention..!
edit on 21/12/2010 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by 0bserver1
 


We didn't bring up the copyright issue.In fact nobody can make any kind of computer aided analysis of any Apollo moon landing image from the internet. This is the very thing these moon hoax people just don't understand.

"Special experimental software' OF A JPEG INTERNET SERVER IMAGE!???

Ludicrous.

Get it yet?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


You know I will never get it, And I don't want to get it , because credible people who walked the moon already gave statements that there's something we don't supposed to know.. so these kind of research will come closer to the truth than preventing this from knowing or debunking that its false, but thats just my opinion



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by 0bserver1
 


Source this information then.

You want to believe something more than an education? Even my instructors in college didn't really care if 'you got it'. Learning is a proactive exercise, if you don't want to exercise, I don't really care, you see you are not me so it doesn't effect me.

So we are done here now. Good luck to you in the future.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join