NASA is removing the reseau marks from Apollo images

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
It's not all about the "black crosses", it's also what was seen on the moon that they do not want to get out, it's about the out dated special effects that they used back then that now doesn't work on modern people that may be manipulated with modern trickery.

Why does this have to be spelled out to you people? Have we become that gullible that when someone questions what our government is up to we mock them and tease them because of it?
You ought to be ashamed of yourselves for the way you attacked and mocked OP.

I'm ashamed of ATS at this moment.




posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Oh they have quite the process alright. At first their aribrushing and ALTERING, was down on other photographs. Now they're trying to satisfy the public with megapixels, and creating FAKE HIGH DEFINITION OVERLAYS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
BREAKING: Proof NASA/JPL Copy & Pasted Images at Gale Crater Curiosity Landing Site on Mars!\

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...



The net result is that the easily identified final fluffy smooth tampering applications tried but failed to completely hide the large dark blocks extending over the strip edges. It may give the impression that careless image tampering didn't quite hide civilization evidence in these spots. However, if any civilization evidence was ever at these locations, it was thoroughly hidden by the original grainy textured tampering which layers are so dense that nothing can be seen of even fairly large terrain features and the only things that can be seen are very large features like mountains, hills, impact craters, canyons, and finally the dark compression blocks.
In retrospect, as long as the secrecy agenda is inclined to deal with the cumbersome task of attempting to hide the truth they don't want us to know about via modifying and manipulating the original science data imaging on a massive scale, mistakes will be made just because of the sheer numbers and scale involved and small bits and pieces of truth may find its way through to us. However, when they convert over (and they will) to just making up and designing computer graphics generated terrain from scratch no longer needing to modify original exploration research imaging, even greater ignorance in our world societies and institutions will prevail.

The key will be when the data released for public consumption starts demonstrating really dramatic improvements in detail and clarity. Such "improvements" will be reported as due to advancements in camera, processing, and communications technology. Worse and most sickening, it will be believed and well received by a clueless mainstream with a preference to remain that way.


Its basically layers of high pixel FAKERY.

edit on 10-10-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
As is my understanding, the reseau plates are used to determine if any warping of the film occurred so adjustments could be made if they were taking measurements off the film. Since the scientific value of the fidicules is long passed, wouldn't it make sense that future prints have them removed to make it look nicer? I hardly see an nefarious action of NASA saying they're going to release new prints with the fidicules removed.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Thunderheart
 


Would you care to back up any of your wild hypotheses with proof or do you just prefer to ramble aimlessly and hope the mindless sheep will follow you? The whole point of ATS is "deny ignorance" yet you're ashamed of those who have replied to deny the OP's ignorance?



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Thanks for the info OP. Pity this thread is going to be bombarded, but I'd glad you took the plunge and shared the story.

Hopefully when NASA is done with this, they can smooth out the Mona Lisa. The brush strokes hurt my eyes.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Would you prefer they remove the images completely?



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Call me an old-fashioned nostalgic, but I actually like those crosses or reseau marks on the moon pictures.

Also, for all you moon hoaxers :
Do you really think NASA would put undergrad students "in the know" ?
Think of it.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
This is to get the public comfortable with digital manipulation so when Curiosity on Mars takes a picture of a Martian jumping up and down and waving a sign that says, " Earth or Bust - We love John Wayne", they can re-release a now, picture of a rock and people will believe it.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thunderheart
It's not all about the "black crosses", it's also what was seen on the moon that they do not want to get out, it's about the out dated special effects that they used back then that now doesn't work on modern people that may be manipulated with modern trickery.


This is exactly my line of thinking. This is a 40+ year cover up. NASA has to keep up with the times and the technology. The way I understand it - NASA provided ASU with unprecedented access to the original Apollo negatives. ASU will now provide the public with two types of scans : one set for science and another set for joe public (with the reseau patterns removed). apollo.sese.asu.edu...

There is also some very odd discussion about blemishes on the negatives. apollo.sese.asu.edu...


While the image processing steps undertaken as part of this effort may have removed some of these blemish features, users should be aware that blemish features exist in many of the images.


This doesn't make sense. Why would they take out the reseau marks but leave in the blemishes?!!


Originally posted by SolidGoal
Call me an old-fashioned nostalgic, but I actually like those crosses or reseau marks on the moon pictures.

Also, for all you moon hoaxers :
Do you really think NASA would put undergrad students "in the know" ?
Think of it.


I like the reseau patterns, too, because they are the only real link between the vault negatives and the Hasselblad cameras which were allegedly dumped on the "moon".

In answer to your question... it is interesting to note that

ASU students and staff have developed software, provided archiving expertise, and processed scans to final products


but the quality control work is handled by JSC

Johnson Space Center Team do the bulk of the work applying their years of experience and quality control ...


When the images processing is completed, the images must be captioned NASA/ASU, and,


These images, and their associated derived products, may not be copied, reverse engineered, decompiled, disassembled, translated, modified or have derivative works made of the imagery, in whole or in part.


NASA has stated all these years that the Apollo images belong to the public but this agreement between NASA/ASU specifically says that derivative works are prohibited. Apollo space images are now copyrighted.

(This all happened while we were busy looking at the pretty pictures.)
edit on 10/11/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: add 40 year cover up



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



NASA has stated all these years that the Apollo images belong to the public but this agreement between NASA/ASU specifically says that derivative works are prohibited. Apollo space images are now copyrighted.


Only the ones that have had the reseau marks removed. You can still use the originals in your research.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 

Thanks for your reply SJ.
But as DJW001 stated, the original are still part of the public domain.
I really don't see the conspiracy here...



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



NASA has stated all these years that the Apollo images belong to the public but this agreement between NASA/ASU specifically says that derivative works are prohibited. Apollo space images are now copyrighted.


Only the ones that have had the reseau marks removed. You can still use the originals in your research.


That's not a good enough excuse, DJ. NASA should not be engaging in propaganda by removing the reseau patterns from Apollo images. NASA should not be putting copyright restrictions on Apollo images.... EVER!!




posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



That's not a good enough excuse, DJ. NASA should not be engaging in propaganda by removing the reseau patterns from Apollo images. NASA should not be putting copyright restrictions on Apollo images.... EVER!!


You keep trying to dictate what NASA can and cannot do. Why can't NASA touch up photographs for aesthetic reasons, provided they leave the originals untouched for purposes of accurate documentation? Incidentally, it is Arizona State University, not NASA, that is extending the copyright on the processed images. You can use scans of the originals all you want.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter


That's not a good enough excuse, DJ. NASA should not be engaging in propaganda by removing the reseau patterns from Apollo images. NASA should not be putting copyright restrictions on Apollo images.... EVER!!



I'm not sure exactly how this is propaganda, someone's making more aesthetically pleasing versions of the photographs. Also, had you read the story you'd know that NASA is not in any way putting copyright restrictions on Apollo photographs. They're public domain and ASU is using their time and resources to remove the reseau marks and it is those photos that are being copyrighted since it is their right to do so. You seem to be under the impression that anyone who does anything involving space is by default part of NASA, this simply isn't true.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Shout out to lokomotiv23's thread titled Hasselblads On The Moon, which got me interested in the subject of lunar Hasselblads. There are at least 12 lunar Hasselblads that were dumped on the surface of the moon. These cameras are the key to unlocking the Apollo conspiracy.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

According to some sources, the lunar Hasselblads were dumped on the moon because of weight considerations. This has shown to be not true.

Although the lunar Hasselblads weighed only 4 pounds each Astronaut Ed Mitchell smuggled his Mauer 16-mm DAC which weighed 2 pounds on Apollo 14. In 2011 he attempted to auction that lunar camera but NASA swooped down with legal attacks.

NASA dumped the cameras on the moon for a reason: The lunar landings were faked.
NASA is removing the reseau marks from Apollo mages for the same reason.



Nasa dumped the cameras on the moon, because the moonlandings were faked? Maybe you should think about what you wrote.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Merinda
 



Nasa dumped the cameras on the moon, because the moonlandings were faked? Maybe you should think about what you wrote.


Merinda has raised an interesting point. Does my statement break logic? Let's review some facts that are not in dispute here.

NASA has stipulated that the lunar Hasselblads were left on the surface of the moon. The Apollo defenders in this thread have not ever disputed it. Some Apollo defenders here have described the lunar Hasselblad as a "useless weight" or "empty camera housings".

Next fact. The lunar Hasselblad cameras all included a unique reseau pattern glass plate and a unique Biogon lens.

Next fact. Arizona State University, in a legal contract with NASA, has agreed to digitally remove the reseau pattern markings from the ultra hi-res 1.9GB scan files.

My personal interpretation of these facts leads me to the conclusion that NASA does not want us to see what secrets can be found within the lunar Hasselblad negatives. NASA is behaving in a very suspicious manner and they are engaging in open acts of historical revisionism.

So, my statement does not break logic. The moon landings were faked, NASA has been covering up for this last 40+ years. First, NASA needed a logical reason to leave the cameras on the moon. Second, they have a university remove the reseau patterns from all the images.

This is a cover up that is taking place right now.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



NASA has stipulated that the lunar Hasselblads were left on the surface of the moon. The Apollo defenders in this thread have not ever disputed it. Some Apollo defenders here have described the lunar Hasselblad as a "useless weight" or "empty camera housings".


True.


Next fact. The lunar Hasselblad cameras all included a unique reseau pattern glass plate and a unique Biogon lens.


False. All of the Apollo Hasselblads, including those not flown, has identical reseaus.


Next fact. Arizona State University, in a legal contract with NASA, has agreed to digitally remove the reseau pattern markings from the ultra hi-res 1.9GB scan files.


It's not clear whether they agreed to remove the black marks, or decided to do it on their own initiative. In fact, it seems likely that they originated the idea in order to copyright the scans.


My personal interpretation of these facts leads me to the conclusion that NASA does not want us to see what secrets can be found within the lunar Hasselblad negatives.


How would removing black crosses from the scans hide anything? And why leave the original scans online for everyone to see?


NASA is behaving in a very suspicious manner and they are engaging in open acts of historical revisionism.


No, they are in no way altering the original documents. You are the one engaging in historical revisionism by ignoring all the documentation and making up your own stories without any basis in fact.


So, my statement does not break logic.


True; it has nothing to do with logic. You have invented an issue with no basis in fact whatsoever, and then using it as "evidence" to support your revisionist agenda.


The moon landings were faked,


You have failed to prove that, and you've been trying for at least two years now.


NASA has been covering up for this last 40+ years. First, NASA needed a logical reason to leave the cameras on the moon.


They had one. You have not provided a single reason why they should have returned them.


Second, they have a university remove the reseau patterns from all the images.


So? Please explain why removing marks from a single set of scan compromises the documentary value of the originals?



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Student loans...



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
NASA has stated all these years that the Apollo images belong to the public but this agreement between NASA/ASU specifically says that derivative works are prohibited. Apollo space images are now copyrighted



Raw scans should be credited using the line "NASA/JSC/Arizona State University" or "NASA/JSC/ASU". Arizona State University retains the rights to any derived products (such as post-scanning processed digital images and movies), in part and in whole. ASU hereby grants permission for news media, educators, personal, and scientific users to download and use individual ASU-produced Apollo images and their complete associated captions if applicable for personal, educational, and research uses without express permission.


Source

I bolded the important part.



These images, and their associated derived products, may not be copied, reverse engineered, decompiled, disassembled, translated, modified or have derivative works made of the imagery, in whole or in part. You also may not rent, disclose, publish, sell, assign, lease, sub-license, market, or transfer the imagery or any part thereof or use it in any manner not expressly authorized.


Bolded the other important part.

As some have alluded ... the concern you have is nothing to do with NASA or ASU, it is entirely to do with persons that profiteer off of work in the public domain.

The text is written in legalese which is maybe where you're getting confused? It's also quite generic. IE the ASU is trying to protect its IP of any tools made which may process the images etc .. There is nothing sinister about it. In the US you etiher protect your copyright or you lose it.

They're not preventing you from personal, educational, or research use ... I imagine your 'use' is covered under 'research' and maybe 'education'. They're preventing people from using the images as a loop hole around NASA's policy against using say Armstrong's image to sell a tin of beans in Europe etc ... without having to ask NASA first.

If they were going to be sueing awkward photoshop artists I imagine they would have started around 1993 or prior.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join