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.

 

An Example of NASA Lunar Airbrushing? You Decide, Without Insults, Please.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
I removed the contents of the thread because I realized I erred in my assumption. I apologize for the inconvenience.

edit on 7-3-2012 by The Shrike because: I erred.

edit on 7-3-2012 by The Shrike because: To add comment.




posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Looks kind of like a eyelash that got in there somehow. Something like that.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Sure, delete it from two images and forget to do it in one.

Here's a high resolution version of 1098. Judge for yourself whether it's something on the Moon or something in the image. In making that judgement, look around the image a bit.
www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Clearly a staple.

Nothing to see here.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Sure, delete it from two images and forget to do it in one.

Here's a high resolution version of 1098. Judge for yourself whether it's something on the Moon or something in the image. In making that judgement, look around the image a bit.
www.lpi.usra.edu...


Before I saw your reply, I had already looked at the high res photo and realized that the crevice looked good as far as the sun lighting the left edge properly but then I took a closer look at the except for the bottom section that curls up from the bottom and it was lit which was the giveaway. I erred and I removed the contents of my OP, with an apology.

I don't know what you meant by "look around the image a bit." but it's moot now. Thanks anyway.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


IIRC, a lot of the images that were originally taken were developed on earth from negatives. I could be entirely wrong in that, it's just something that rings a bell. And from that, a lot of earthly dust/debris/etc was effectively 'photographed' post processing.

From the NASA Apollo 11 Image Library


Many of the scans of photos taken during the missions were done from the original film. These scans are being done by NASA Johnson, with some post-processing by Kipp Teague. The film is scanned at 4096 x 4096 pixels per image. Kipp reduces each digital image to approximately 2350 x 2350 pixels (equivalent to 300 dpi) and does minor adjustments of levels to ensure that (1) brightly lit areas of lunar soil are neutral grey, (2) objects with known colors (such as the CDR stripes or the LCRU blankets) look right, and (3) information in bright or dark areas is not lost. These images from original film are indicated by the notation 'OF300' in the image description. In each case, a 900 x 900 pixel version is also provided.


So they don't deny post processing to ensure a consistent image, and given that a lot of the images are old, I'd be inclined to conclude that's a tiny hair fragment, lint etc.

It won't satisfy anyone but me however, but regardless.

(You have funny circles btw, they have corners!!! hehe j/k!! )

(ps, if I make any obvious typos it's because the stupid batteries on this wireless KB are running low and while I'm typing semi-accurately, I find on inspection, I've become a cave man!! o.O)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Ahh.. You know, I almost broke my PC because of my keyboard, and in doing so, ended up re-wiring my speakers (anyone else hate that stupid coloured thin wire that you need to burn to get live? argh!) with proper copper wire, and then realising I may have destroyed my hard drive in the process (I tend to get annoyed when one small thing leads to a bigger things which then leads to an all out effort to remedy things in general) and finally managed to reboot back into windows, load up waterfox (64bit firefox) and with my lazarus addon was able to continue my post where I left off... and find you've redacted it!!!



Hahahaha... oh who'd be me!!!! lmao



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Sure, delete it from two images and forget to do it in one.


Well come on Phage we all know how incompetent NASA is... I mean they keep getting hacked by leaving systems unsecured... they lose a lap top that has the operating codes for the ISS...

Seriously I can see they easily miss some details with that airbrush


But Shrike doing a Lunar anomaly thread? I about fell off my chair...



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Phage
Sure, delete it from two images and forget to do it in one.


Well come on Phage we all know how incompetent NASA is... I mean they keep getting hacked by leaving systems unsecured... they lose a lap top that has the operating codes for the ISS...

Seriously I can see they easily miss some details with that airbrush


But Shrike doing a Lunar anomaly thread? I about fell off my chair...


You better place pillows around your chair to catch you after you do a search for my former self "skepticaled lunar anomalies" (and those by The Shrike will also show up) and check out my threads. Is it possible that I have created more threads than you?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mainidh
reply to post by The Shrike
 


IIRC, a lot of the images that were originally taken were developed on earth from negatives. I could be entirely wrong in that, it's just something that rings a bell. And from that, a lot of earthly dust/debris/etc was effectively 'photographed' post processing.
snip


Some of the early missions had the film processed in situ, in the Lunar Orbiter itself. Here is an explanation of the process. Scroll down.
www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
I removed the contents of the thread because I realized I erred in my assumption. I apologize for the inconvenience.

edit on 7-3-2012 by The Shrike because: I erred.

edit on 7-3-2012 by The Shrike because: To add comment.


I'll appreciate someone contacting a Mod to delete this thread. There's nothing to comment on.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join