Are NASA tricking us with inverted pictures?

a reply to: VoidHawk

This is actually a conspiracy theory that could be likely. I was wondering the same this morning. Not necessarily about the inversion but about adjusting the photos to drive public sentiment.

a lot of on ground detail is probably also blurred

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: sn0rch

I'm well aware what I have done, I even stated as such, the whole point is did NASA do it!

Umm, well if you are aware of what you done, and it explains why the image appears to be raised... then question answered. They didn't do anything to it. you did.

The original image is exactly how it is.

What are you asking? Would you want NASA to actually alter the image so it appears how you want it to appear?

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Busted...

NASA would rather deceive us than show us anything.

Great Work OP...It certainly is inverted.

S&F

Oh my god.. Lol It's not. Far out...

edit to ask...

What exactly would they gain from doing this? if you cannot answer that, then you're simply not being logical. Why alter an image to LOOK WRONG? would they not alter it to appear legitimate, if they were indeed trying to 'hide' something.

I bet you anything the sky is not really blue... Go have a look.. I think they use some sort of blue gas to make it blue. NASA just can't help themselves...

originally posted by: sn0rch
I bet you anything the sky is not really blue... Go have a look.. I think they use some sort of blue gas to make it blue. NASA just can't help themselves...

Please. It's clearly project Bluebeam.

a reply to: VoidHawk

What about private citizens who have taken photos of the moon, who have no agenda?

a reply to: VoidHawk

Optical illusion. The original Ceres picture shows craters that dip inwards. Look at the top of the picture in the right corner. Intend to see the crater going down. Once you see that, slowly gaze at the rest of the photo. The craters dip inwards.

You had me going there for a moment! Then I looked at your "inverted moon" example and the one on the left looked just as puffed up as the inverted one. I realized then that my eyes could see it either way, and that was the key to looking at Ceres again.

peace,
AB

some people cant handle the idea of planets and moons being populated by others? now that pics exists and have been 'distorted' for public viewing, why the secrecy?

originally posted by: VoidHawk
...Normally such features are the result of a piece of rock rolling across the surface that leaves a furrow as it travels. But in NASA's picture these features are raised!...

I don't think the lines in your original image look raised at all. They look like furrows already (before you inverted it).


Besides, if I invert this original NASA image:



Don't I end up with this image:



Somehow, I doubt Ceres is floating in bright white space.

originally posted by: blacktie
some people cant handle the idea of planets and moons being populated by others? now that pics exists and have been 'distorted' for public viewing, why the secrecy?

What pictures of Ceres have been distorted?

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

Oh my God! Look at those bright spots! They must be alien bases!

Many of us do this here on ATS, and in video on many other sites. We invert images to reveal contrast differences. It is a tool used in photographic analysis everywhere. Why would NASA not do it?, would be more of a question for me.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: VoidHawk

Optical illusion. The original Ceres picture shows craters that dip inwards. Look at the top of the picture in the right corner. Intend to see the crater going down. Once you see that, slowly gaze at the rest of the photo. The craters dip inwards.

On optical illusion to make "innie" craters look like "outie" domes is to simply turn the picture upside down, like this picture of a moon crater (no color inversion necessary):

originally posted by: sn0rch

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Busted...

NASA would rather deceive us than show us anything.

Great Work OP...It certainly is inverted.

S&F

Oh my god.. Lol It's not. Far out...

edit to ask...

What exactly would they gain from doing this? if you cannot answer that, then you're simply not being logical. Why alter an image to LOOK WRONG? would they not alter it to appear legitimate, if they were indeed trying to 'hide' something.

I bet you anything the sky is not really blue... Go have a look.. I think they use some sort of blue gas to make it blue. NASA just can't help themselves...

Why the hell would NASA ever need to blur, alter or remove things from many photos?

Are the Astronauts mooning the camera? Are they taking a whiz?

NASA is probably withholding the greatest discovery of all time.

a reply to: VoidHawk

I suppose by now at least one person has suggested that your mind is playing tricks on what your eyes are telling it.

I'll admit the OP's inverting the original image does give it a different appearance. I don't mean the angles of the light or whether things are a dome or a crater. I mean the texture. The darker areas in the inverted picture expanded. The texture changes to a ragged landscape. It seems overall more dark. The inverted image has more richness, imho. Possibly the original is so bright it loses a lot of its features. Or perhaps the brighter areas in the original unveil their richness when inverted.

I personally give no weight to this, but I do think when you invert images you get a different character picture which results.

Another poster stated inverting images brings out contrast to see details otherwise obscured. I think possibly this has happene.

a reply to: VoidHawk

I am no expert on cameras or pictures by any means. What you have presented whether right or wrong does appear to raise some points that you have nicely explained.

The ones you showed after you had inverted look much more like what we should be seeing. Very interesting observation.

HOWEVER, my one question is, if it was that easy for you to do or come up with how did NASA think that they would not be found out so easily?

But nice work!

a reply to: projectbane

What about the color of the martian sky? Same deal kind of, right? The going conspiracy was NASA was changing the pictures to be red. It apparently was easy to do. But if this is what NASA was doing, how come nobody officially came down on them? Far as I know, nobody has officially come out and said NASA has manipulated the colors. All evidence leads to one conclusion: The martian sky is oftentimes red, just as we see in the NASA pictures.

Probably more than once people have easily proven the NASA pictures legit. And this is why nobody makes a big deal about it. It's like making fun of the stupid guy or winning against the worst team. There's just no reward in stating the obvious or giving stupid people an audience.

So even though this thread is fun and I liked the image effects, I don't think it has any bearing on reality, insofar as it's strictly defined. It'd just be too hard to lie, especially using something as simple as inverting an image or increasing or decreasing brightness or so forth.

Want to add it appears the OP is inverting AND decreasing the brightness. That's why the bright spots appear like lakes. If the picture is not darkened then the "lakes" lose their lakeness. It's a trick, I say!

(not a trick by NASA, btw)

(By darkening the image, you're just throwing out image data to make it look more like a lake. The original doesn't look like a lake at all. I'll make a minor note the crevices/ridges around the spots aid the illusion. A couple of them branch out almost like channels or "arms" in a liquid-ish way.)

I don't think so , why would a dark spot raising more questions then a bright spot.. ?