Many NASA photos are doctored

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Is it a conspiracy, or fact?



goes.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Well, the obvious similarity is that both edit the sky.

Zoom in on the image. What's the difference?

NOAA's "enhancement" leaves rough edges on the Earth and puts some fake stars around.

NASA's "enhancement" has no rough edges and disappears with the stars altogether.




posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Are you sure the "sky" is edited? A camera trained on the earths daylight side with all that cloud cover would most certainly have to use a very high shutter speed if the detail in the bright areas is to be maintained. At such a high shutter speed the fainter light of stars would not have time to register on the film/sensor.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
so because two different Photoshop dept at two different places have a differing opinion on an aesthetic choice in "enhancement" theirs a conspiracy?

I am not sure if you are aware, but there is probably not a single digital image for public distribution that has not been touched up in Photoshop.

Things like specs on the lens, or dead pixels on the camera, etc.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by minkmouse
Are you sure the "sky" is edited? A camera trained on the earths daylight side with all that cloud cover would most certainly have to use a very high shutter speed if the detail in the bright areas is to be maintained. At such a high shutter speed the fainter light of stars would not have time to register on the film/sensor.


Cloud cover ? The edited parts are outside the atmosphere.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
so because two different Photoshop dept at two different places have a differing opinion on an aesthetic choice in "enhancement" theirs a conspiracy?

I am not sure if you are aware, but there is probably not a single digital image for public distribution that has not been touched up in Photoshop.

Things like specs on the lens, or dead pixels on the camera, etc.


Well, it certainly proves two different Photoshop departments were involved in editing the first photo from this satellite, which are a lot of departments to be involved.

Also I don't think aesthetic choice is the issue here. Do we have an unedited photo? That might please our eyes...



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SomeoneWatching
 


Yep I agree, many pictures they offer seem rather fishy to me ....


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SomeoneWatching
 


That's what I'm saying, are you sure they're edited and not a result of the photographic process?



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulpowertothendegree
reply to post by SomeoneWatching
 


Yep I agree, many pictures they offer seem rather fishy to me ....


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Ahaha damn NASA what are they thinking. Those images are sooooo shooped. I mean look. It's really white on the left hand side. And they expect us to believe that is the moon???

Even I can shop better than that, using mspaint on a 286.

and I'm really bad at it.

aaaaand...

lets think for a moment, they've never denied they touch up photographs. They've never denied that some images are in fact separate hues and combined later into a colour image.

You ask, OP, conspiracy or fact. It's pretty much already accepted as fact, as far as I was aware.

ps. my skills with mspaint on a 286 as described above were for illustration purposes only and do not reflect the legitimacy of the claim that the photos presented are dodgy. Just in case.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


Look at the bottom picture...where is the shadow for the astronaut?



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulpowertothendegree
reply to post by winofiend
 


Look at the bottom picture...where is the shadow for the astronaut?


There isnt one. A spot light in the warehouse where it was taken is obviously burned out.

Darn Union workers!



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by soulpowertothendegree
 





Look at the bottom picture...where is the shadow for the astronaut?


Exactly where it should be....



Sorry....



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Not according to the shadow behind it.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SomeoneWatching
 


that is not the same pic



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SomeoneWatching
 


They are two different images. The bottom one is a couple of hours after the first one.

How can I tell? Simple:

Take a look at the top image, look just below Cuba, and notice the bright spot. The sun is causing that.

Now take a look at the bottom image. Notice how the bright spot has moved to the left. Means the Earth has rotated and time has passed.

Because time has passed, clouds have moved. Take a look at the tropical areas, like Florida or Central America. Notice how the clouds looks small, popcorn like, then in the bottom image, they've grown. That's what pop up thunderstorms do, and is indicative of time passing.

So comparing the images really makes no sense to me as they were taken at two different times and are not the same picture.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I still don't understand why they black out the sky. Is it just to hide all the satellites?



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomeoneWatching
I still don't understand why they black out the sky. Is it just to hide all the satellites?


You do realize that the way cameras work is to expose film or a CCD chip for a certain amount of time, yes? sometimes that time is short, like a day time picture the shutter could be 1/250 of a second. High speed cameras are taking shots much, much faster than that.

Stars, satellites and distant planets light is very faint and takes shutter speeds that are a lot longer. Whole seconds to minutes in some cases.

Light reflecting off the moon's surface or the surface of the Earth is very bright. Camera speeds are fast when taking pictures of them.

Here's a picture I took of the moon through my telescope. Shutter speed was about 1/125:



As you can see, even at a shutter speed of 1/125 seconds the sunlit side of the moon is over exposed. Notice that you are not seeing any stars in the picture. It's because it's too quick to capture any stars.

Now take a look at this picture also taken by me:



Shutter speed was around 1/50. That's the dark side of the moon being lit up by earthshine (like how the full moon lights up our nights). Slower speed and captured fainter light, but still no stars.

Here we go, I have stars in my picture. I took it and opened the shutter for 12 seconds. Now you can see stars. And look at the moon. It's so totally over exposed it looks like a spot light and you can not see any of it's features:



Pictures of the Earth taken from space and pictures taken on the moon in the daylight suffer the same limits: If you want to see it, it all comes down to shutter speed. Not air. Has nothing to do with air at all.

If satellites taking pictures of the Earth were to see stars, they would have to increase the shutter speed and that would over expose the image of the earth. It would end up looking like a white ball of light.
Same goes for images taken on the moon: to see the stars, they would have had to open up the shutters for several seconds and that would have washed out anything else in the picture due to the sun light reflecting off the moon's surface.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SomeoneWatching
 


All I can see is the NASA enhancement has the contrast turned up a little to bring out the details more. This would also work to obscure the stars shown in the NOAA enhancement.





new topics
 
3

log in

join