NASA Anomalies in Photos- A Cover Up?

If you look on image 6, you can see that the nose of the shuttle has the same over-sharpening as the skyline does. That's all it looks like to me.

Originally posted by BlasteR
These photos were already posted in another thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can see all my thoughts on this in my posts.. But I don't think it's a UFO.

-ChriS

And HERE, perhaps they are from the same secret source as the OP's.

In Image 6 the entire Earth-meeting-Space surface has been dragged.
If you use paint shop pro X like me, it's either smudge on 100 percent or the 'Pull' tool. in an upwards motion. Look to where the beam with the camera is that seperates the two images of the earth/space meeting, if you study it closely you can tell that the image hasn't been 'touched up' by a professional. Otherwise they would make the line one hundred percent straight, with a curved sphere motion like the other pictures.

Actually looking at the picture now, that whole area including the Earth that is seen before the space shuttle gets in the way, is all fake.
they've made it look real, but the different strips of blue is what's used in atlas's, and any other created world viewing document.
When it IS an actual picture of the Earth, it doesn't have random blues mix-matching. Usually it all merge's together in many places, but with that strip of Earth just there, it looks like one's been cut and copied onto the other. And, it's very, very cartoony.

reply to post by firegoggles


referring to the weirdness of colors on picture 6, i accept the fact that under the shuttle there is a weird part that seems colored in, but the whole picture seems to have off colors, so it might be a color thing

The photo in image006 is a very real, and perfectly legitimate photo. I've been a professional graphic designer for years, and the colour banding that's evident in this photo is simply the result of the colour range being reduced - as if someone's saved the image as a GIF, with 128 or less colours, and re-saved it as a JPEG.

I could quite easily take any of the other photos, export them from Photoshop as a GIF, and recreate exactly the same effect. In fact, I'd be happy to do so to prove my point if anybody wished (not at this very minute, but soon enough!).

The effect is similar to what you'd see if you reduced your computer monitor display to 16-bit or less. Photos would display banding and would almost take on a cartoon-like quality. If you study the image, you'll see that the colour banding is evident in all areas of the photo - nothing's been touched up or edited - the colour range has simply been compressed so what you're seeing is essentially a poorer version of the original pic.

Here's a link to a random GIF photo I found on Google:
learningblueprint.com...
Notice the similar banding and reduced colour range? It's a completely normal and repeatable result of colour compression.

So, there's absolutely no question in my mind that image006 is a legitimate photo - it's just been saved/exported in such a way as to compromise the original colours.

reply to post by firegoggles


in your 006 image here, I find that the actual earth looks photoshoped or something... doesnt look natural...



Doesn't the earth look photoshoped to u guys?

cool pictures,thanks for sharing..

i'm no expert on pictures or outer space photography,but isnt it weird we never see stars in the NASA pictures?

it seems they re-do the entire sky/space in all pics,cause i know there is more going on out there.

Originally posted by Skipper1975
cool pictures,thanks for sharing..

i'm no expert on pictures or outer space photography,but isnt it weird we never see stars in the NASA pictures?

it seems they re-do the entire sky/space in all pics,cause i know there is more going on out there.

Actually what I find weird is the new DIGITALLY REMASTERING of the original STAR TREK series to REMOVE THE STARS.

Why would they do this? Due to its popularity to spread this myth that one cannot see stars?

Ok aside from ONE guy...

you are all forgetting the fact that these are not officially released pictures from NASA.

The OP says the source :

Originally posted by firegoggles
I received these photos from an undisclosed source. What I can tell you is this, I DID NOT download these photos off of any web site period.

Then...

Originally posted by firegoggles
The person I got these photos from does in fact work for NASA or did work for them at one time they may be a direct employee or they could have been a subcontractor. So it's not entirely inaccurate to say it's a NASA cover up.

1. He's not sure if the source works for NASA or worked for NASA or could have been a sub contractor.
That tells me the OP is not being honest or at the very least, didn't do his homework.

2. The OP disagree with someone saying that this is not a represntation of NASA coverup. It is CLEARLY not a NASA coverup if they are not the source of the images. Speculation that a guy who worked for them in some capacity giving the OP the photos is not an indication of a cover up.

3. MOST IMPORTANTLY: These are NOT NASA photos so WHY are we debating the merit, content or anything else about them? If they are not from NASA, they are NOT FROM NASA.. get it?


why is there debate on images that have not been released from NASA?
Why is anyone wasting their time on this?

Even if these were "doctored" by NASA, what difference would it make as they are not released photos?

People please.. for the sake of what little credibility ATS has left...if you are going to discuss anomalies in images released by NASA let's at least be sure they are released by NASA, is that so difficult a requirement?


(and don't get me started on the guy asking about why there aren't any stars)

Originally posted by Skipper1975
cool pictures,thanks for sharing..

i'm no expert on pictures or outer space photography,but isnt it weird we never see stars in the NASA pictures?

it seems they re-do the entire sky/space in all pics,cause i know there is more going on out there.

sigh... I am so tired of this as evidence of something sinister.
Ignorance is rampant here on ATS.

Just for starters, here is a local link
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But there is always Google or your High School, Science teacher, or pick up a book, or ask.....

These were up a while ago. If you compare the photos.... there is a lens flare... at the same distance from the boom. It appears to be a distant object on the horizon... but shows up at the exact same place... relative to the ship.

Sorry. I got all excited about these some months ago... and a keen eye pointed that out to me. Was a bit of a letdown.. but it is better to be shown... and move on to the next... as there are many oddities out there.

Good find, though. Keep searchin'

jb

What about the fact that there are no stars?
Is that normal?

reply to post by gormly


I'm going to address you first even though there are plenty of posts I should be answering. Let me be clear I plainly stated that the person I received these images from DOES in fact work for NASA.

I just said "he" (in not so many words) that he could be on payroll directly as in ALL the time employee or he could be hired as a subcontractor and in BOTH cases it would be defined as "working for NASA".

You even quoted my statement. I was simply protecting the persons Identity nothing more.

The person I received these images from does in fact work for NASA OK? Clear?

And please if you have an answer about the stars do tell.
Is it simply because the sun is so bright that it over exposes the sky or causes the aperture to somehow close so tight it doesn't allow any stars what so ever to creep into the image...I'm sorry to me that's just fantasy!

Is that your theory?
If so the sky should be somewhat lighter in color not deep black and also even if that's the case then "some" perhaps just one star here or there would show up from what I have experienced in the world of amateur astronomy at least.

Thanks all !

You cannot see the stars beacause of the white balance i think. iIf you took a photo on earth on a hill, with the night sky in the backround and a person in the foreground, with he person in focus, in a fairly well lit area then the stars will not show up, it is the same thing in space.


Im pretty sure that Picture 9 is a fake i zoomed in about 175% and increased the brightness to check for errors around the space station against the night sky. there is, very clear evidence of this around the entire space station as though it hase been cut around the egde and stuck on. take a look--->

reply to post by gormly



Yea I thought you were going there with the stars thing.. pffft

WOW you are a skeptic yet you believe anything you read.

The theory that stars would totally washed out due to the brightness of the sun is simply a "half truth".

At certain angles and aperture settings the effect is increased or decreased. I as an amateur astronomer(with a 12inch Newtonian scope) have recreated the same effect when a full moon is out, however along the edges of the image you can see the stars bleeding through here and there.
It would be the same for the NASA photos. Sure you would get some washout and at times perhaps even "most" of the stars washed out.
But to claim that the sun and aperture settings and ANGLE being just right(because that's what is required for the wash out effect) to block out ALL stars in ALL photos is just fantasy.

At some point there should be a "few", at the least a few stars bleeding through in "some" of these images. We can see some very faint detail in some of the images and further more, they are very vivid and bright images, thus proving that the imaging device is capturing faint light and therefore disproving the "washed out" theory as being 100% correct.

EXPERIENCE is everything. I strongly suggest you stop reading NASA propaganda and read a book for yourself perhaps check one out at your local school library you mentioned in your post, obviously it's YOUR source of knowledge.

Did this post suite you as far as tone? Was I speaking your language?
I tried hard to keep within the guideline you set for us all. I hope I lived up to your standard of critical thinking.

Thanks all!
(I'm sorry the rest of you had to endure the tone, just thought I had better set the "bar" now and get it over with. Might I suggest that none of you emulate the person that replied to me here in conduct and in general and the board will be a better place.


(Ya ok a little harsh but hey..)

[edit on 8-6-2008 by firegoggles]

OP why will you not reply to the fact that at least 2 people have already posted links to threads where these images have been sen and discussed already, some time ago? Do you think your 'source' leaked them to those posters too? Why would he do that?...

reply to post by Vector J


Sorry I'm backing up to go through all the post in just a bit.
I also need to read the other thread, seemed it covered mainly the UFO topic.

I on the other hand wanted to focus more on theories about them being real or not real in general as you seen did come up in the topic. And focus on theories around the anomaly in image 0010 and one in 006 that so far no one has mentioned.The on in 0010 is in the "sky-glow"(the other thread touches on it a bit not sure how much though).

I was intending to address the matter right away and determine if I should kept this thread alive or not.
I will say this...
As far as the other poster, with his or her description, I would bet our "sources" are the same, to my surprise.
That is with what information was given I'd say we just walked into the "six degrees of separation" zone.

I posted this in the other thead but...The white squigglies you are seeing appear to be some kind of ghosting, perhaps even a reflection of the ISS itself on the lens. Look at where they show up and compare that to the ISS in the photos.

This is one of the originals..


This is the same photo brightened to show this ghosting effect:


If this photo was taken from inside the ISS through a window, the reflection off the window would also explain this.

But from what i can tell in the photos these were taken from outside the ISS. Which means to me it's more likely a reflection off of components of the camera itself.

-ChriS

[edit on 8-6-2008 by BlasteR]

reply to post by BlasteR


OK that I can buy a lot easier than some things put forward so far.

It does remind one of taking a picture through a jet's passenger seat double pane windows. Interesting point for sure.

I'll be back in a couple hours and start down from the top of my thread and see where we are at.

Thanks man!
Thanks all!