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.
Elektra-L still images Debunked - Obvious editing in my opinion
page: 11
share:
I decided to evaluate some still images with Elektra L. The two images that I chose were nearly the same in composition, so I would expect the same
artifacts if any are present. I also look at a Loading and a Launch image to show that the artifacts are not from digitalization from film. If they
were, they would be on every digitization.
www.youtube.com...
To me, the conclusive parts are the shadow of the Earth, and the jagged back edge of the dark side of the Earth. It's just lit very oddly for the Dark Side. Personally, it looks like that part of the Earth drops off existence, and that shadow just looks fake as everything. It also has that fake green glow to it, that I've found on the other photos that I believe edited.
I don't think that there is a way that a satellite can stay in orbit with the Earth, locked. This seems difficult, as the Earth is spinning so fast, and they just aren't built to be powered like that for long periods of time. Bizarre.
www.youtube.com...
To me, the conclusive parts are the shadow of the Earth, and the jagged back edge of the dark side of the Earth. It's just lit very oddly for the Dark Side. Personally, it looks like that part of the Earth drops off existence, and that shadow just looks fake as everything. It also has that fake green glow to it, that I've found on the other photos that I believe edited.
I don't think that there is a way that a satellite can stay in orbit with the Earth, locked. This seems difficult, as the Earth is spinning so fast, and they just aren't built to be powered like that for long periods of time. Bizarre.
I don't think that there is a way that a satellite can stay in orbit with the Earth, locked. This seems difficult, as the Earth is spinning so fast
A geostationary orbit, geostationary Earth orbit or geosynchronous equatorial orbit[1] (GEO) is a circular orbit 35,786 kilometres (22,236 mi) above the Earth's equator and following the direction of the Earth's rotation.[2] An object in such an orbit has an orbital period equal to the Earth's rotational period (one sidereal day), and thus appears motionless, at a fixed position in the sky.
so yeah...
originally posted by: ThreeDeuce
I don't think that there is a way that a satellite can stay in orbit with the Earth, locked. This seems difficult, as the Earth is spinning so fast, and they just aren't built to be powered like that for long periods of time. Bizarre.
So orbital mechanics is something else you do not know anything about as well!
I don't quite understand what you're trying to prove.
At first you compare the artefacts from two entirely different cameras, with entirely different algorithm engines, entirely different lighting conditions, entirely different aperture settings. What are you proving with this?
Secondly, never, and I mean ever, can you reliably spot manipulated images from the B&C channels of an image – and certainly not from images that are probably second or third generation images downloaded from a website.
At first you compare the artefacts from two entirely different cameras, with entirely different algorithm engines, entirely different lighting conditions, entirely different aperture settings. What are you proving with this?
Secondly, never, and I mean ever, can you reliably spot manipulated images from the B&C channels of an image – and certainly not from images that are probably second or third generation images downloaded from a website.
a reply to: ThreeDeuce
You're basing your argument on your ignorance of orbital mechanics? Just because you don't understand, doesn't make the Earth flat.
I don't think that there is a way that a satellite can stay in orbit with the Earth, locked. This seems difficult, as the Earth is spinning so fast, and they just aren't built to be powered like that for long periods of time. Bizarre.
You're basing your argument on your ignorance of orbital mechanics? Just because you don't understand, doesn't make the Earth flat.
originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: ThreeDeuce
I don't think that there is a way that a satellite can stay in orbit with the Earth, locked. This seems difficult, as the Earth is spinning so fast, and they just aren't built to be powered like that for long periods of time. Bizarre.
You're basing your argument on your ignorance of orbital mechanics? Just because you don't understand, doesn't make the Earth flat.
If you go by what this guy says you are wrong www.independent.co.uk...[edi tby]edit on 16-7-2015 by imod02 because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: 321Go
I don't quite understand what you're trying to prove.
At first you compare the artefacts from two entirely different cameras, with entirely different algorithm engines, entirely different lighting conditions, entirely different aperture settings. What are you proving with this?
Secondly, never, and I mean ever, can you reliably spot manipulated images from the B&C channels of an image – and certainly not from images that are probably second or third generation images downloaded from a website.
Actually, I was very clear about this in the video... The two other shots, the load and launch was to show that these types of artifacts do not just appear from digitization. The other two videos, with the same camera, and similar lighting had completely different artifacts. Just look at the fake shadow of the globe, that's my opinion.
originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: ThreeDeuce
I don't think that there is a way that a satellite can stay in orbit with the Earth, locked. This seems difficult, as the Earth is spinning so fast, and they just aren't built to be powered like that for long periods of time. Bizarre.
You're basing your argument on your ignorance of orbital mechanics? Just because you don't understand, doesn't make the Earth flat.
You're basing my whole video, on me saying that I don't believe that a satellite could stay perfectly locked with the earth while hurtling through the universe at untold speed? And then I disucss the images, yet the only thing that you use to discredit me, is that I find it hard to believe that it stays there under such extreme movement. Do you not understand our precession through the universe?
Wow, don't even talk about the edited photos, as the title stated.........
originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
I don't think that there is a way that a satellite can stay in orbit with the Earth, locked. This seems difficult, as the Earth is spinning so fast
A geostationary orbit, geostationary Earth orbit or geosynchronous equatorial orbit[1] (GEO) is a circular orbit 35,786 kilometres (22,236 mi) above the Earth's equator and following the direction of the Earth's rotation.[2] An object in such an orbit has an orbital period equal to the Earth's rotational period (one sidereal day), and thus appears motionless, at a fixed position in the sky.
so yeah...
I do appreciate that you can copy and paste the same information that I read. If you find it reasonable that the satellite can stay there, as we hurtle through the solar system, galaxy, and universe all in one, ... that's for you to believe. I said that I have a problem with it. Pasting it for me is not going to change that.
so yeah... it appears that you didn't even look at the images. That globe had a fake shadow and obvious editing.... so yeah...
So yeah you can obviously cut and paste, but can you evaluate for yourself... so yeah I guess not.
originally posted by: Argyll
a reply to: ThreeDeuce
The Earth is round mate......you just need to get over it
Your little icons stop sign and your orders are really hilarious..
sir you are the one populating and responding to threads of which you have no interest.
If you don't care about the subject. You should stop.
Oh wait, just believe everything that NASA tells you... I'm sure they have a bridge to sell you also.
originally posted by: imod02
originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: ThreeDeuce
I don't think that there is a way that a satellite can stay in orbit with the Earth, locked. This seems difficult, as the Earth is spinning so fast, and they just aren't built to be powered like that for long periods of time. Bizarre.
You're basing your argument on your ignorance of orbital mechanics? Just because you don't understand, doesn't make the Earth flat.
If you go by what this guy says you are wrong www.independent.co.uk...[/qu ote]
I don't know where you stand on the subject but this claim from that article is absoultely bunk "As the Naked Scientists at Cambridge University put it: “The atmosphere is moving with the surface of the Earth below it because there's friction…you continue to move with the surface of the Earth, so there's no difference flying with the rotation of the Earth or against it.”
originally posted by: ThreeDeuce
I don't think that there is a way that a satellite can stay in orbit with the Earth, locked. This seems difficult, as the Earth is spinning so fast, and they just aren't built to be powered like that for long periods of time. Bizarre.
Jaw drops! You are having a freaking laugh. Do you have satellite TV ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! How do you think you can point a dish at a stationary point in the sky DUH !
ATS is getting dumber by the day.......
Sorry mods T&C and all that, but come on, this kind of statement makes a mockery of the original intentions of this site.
What kind of ads will this site attract , and thus income, when the only people left have such a dismal understanding of day to day things.
originally posted by: ThreeDeuce
originally posted by: 321Go
I don't quite understand what you're trying to prove.
At first you compare the artefacts from two entirely different cameras, with entirely different algorithm engines, entirely different lighting conditions, entirely different aperture settings. What are you proving with this?
Secondly, never, and I mean ever, can you reliably spot manipulated images from the B&C channels of an image – and certainly not from images that are probably second or third generation images downloaded from a website.
Actually, I was very clear about this in the video... The two other shots, the load and launch was to show that these types of artifacts do not just appear from digitization. The other two videos, with the same camera, and similar lighting had completely different artifacts. Just look at the fake shadow of the globe, that's my opinion.
I'm afraid I still don't understand your point.
You've downloaded two images from a website, knocked up the brightness and contrast and them claim them to be what? Fake? Edited? I don't get it, sorry.
Those images would almost certainly be edited in some way – firstly to change the format in which they were taken (probably not JPEG in this situation), then to crop and resave them, possibly multiple times through different stages of their life from the data and imaging dept of the satellite team, to the PR dept and the website producers. On each successive save after the first JPEG save they would have deteriorated in some way, as JPEG is a very lossy image format, but it produces small files which are especially useful for websites.
Get the originals and do your experiment again. But this time, ignore whichever schoolboy told you about B&C channels being able to spot anomalies and research some proper methods of image interrogation.
Oh no, am contributing to a flat Earth thread unawares? I swore I'd never do that. I thought this was about image fakery.
While I'm here, why do moderators allow it? This should go straight into the trash or hoax bins, surely? What an utter waste of bandwidth.
While I'm here, why do moderators allow it? This should go straight into the trash or hoax bins, surely? What an utter waste of bandwidth.
a reply to: ThreeDeuce
The ATS site motto is "Deny Ignorance" I think all members have a duty to uphold that motto
If you are trully serious about your "Flat Earth" theory then maybe you should start with the basics......If the Earth were really flat, then why would NASA have us believe that it is a globe? what could they possibly have to gain?
Oh, and I wasn't giving you any form of "order" at all
If you don't care about the subject. You should stop.
The ATS site motto is "Deny Ignorance" I think all members have a duty to uphold that motto
Oh wait, just believe everything that NASA tells you
If you are trully serious about your "Flat Earth" theory then maybe you should start with the basics......If the Earth were really flat, then why would NASA have us believe that it is a globe? what could they possibly have to gain?
Oh, and I wasn't giving you any form of "order" at all
originally posted by: ThreeDeuce
originally posted by: imod02
originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: ThreeDeuce
I don't think that there is a way that a satellite can stay in orbit with the Earth, locked. This seems difficult, as the Earth is spinning so fast, and they just aren't built to be powered like that for long periods of time. Bizarre.
You're basing your argument on your ignorance of orbital mechanics? Just because you don't understand, doesn't make the Earth flat.
If you go by what this guy says you are wrong www.independent.co.uk...[/qu ote]
I don't know where you stand on the subject but this claim from that article is absoultely bunk "As the Naked Scientists at Cambridge University put it: “The atmosphere is moving with the surface of the Earth below it because there's friction…you continue to move with the surface of the Earth, so there's no difference flying with the rotation of the Earth or against it.”
You seem to have lost your sense of humor