NASA Anomalies in Photos- A Cover Up?

am i the only one that thinks that if NASA had a picture with something in it, they wouldn't even bother cutting it out so they could show it to the public, and instead just NOT release it?

-J

reply to post by 2nd2no1


Nah im sure we can all agree on that point,

but the issue remains, They MUST release SOME images...

otherwise we would ALL be VERY suspect...


I love looking at space pics, i think we all do on some level. But correct me if i am wrong... But hasnt NASA been giving us a combination of fake, edited, and of course real images since the early days?

www.aulis.com...

Making all the time we spend investigating such things a waste of time almost??

i mean imagine if the time we spend trawling for information and debating somewhat moot issues, was spent trying to actually make changes...

i know that I for one, would probably get a whole lot more done...

reply to post by firegoggles


Is that a broken windshield on the Space Shuttle?

To me, the photos look a little too clear and "professional" for lack of a better word. Like they are fake....

reply to post by firegoggles


please link original images, no converting

edit:

double post, argh

[edit on 8/6/08 by Jean Luc Picard]

Originally posted by DCPatriot
reply to post by firegoggles

 

Is that a broken windshield on the Space Shuttle?

Yeah i noticed that aswell...

Originally posted by PeaceUk
What about the fact that there are no stars?
Is that normal?

It's normal if you aren't trying to photograph stars. The sun is a very potent light source (no kidding, right?), and in space, it's even more so, since there's no atmosphere filtering it. Take a very intense light source, illuminate something that's primarily white and / or metallic, and you'll create a very bright image. In the case of the ISS, the image is bright enough that the photographer has a choice...he or she can either take a fast exposure, which will capture enough light from the ISS, Shuttle, or the astronauts' white EVA suits to create a nice, clear image, in which case there's not enough stellar light captured to image the stars, or he can go for a long exposure, which will capture enough light to image stars, but will completely over-expose images of the ISS, and, in fact, might even damage the camera.

If you want a sample of this effect, it's not that hard to recreate. Go outside on a nice, clear night, and let your eyes totally adapt so that you can see the stars very clearly. Now, have a friend shine a large flashlight into your eyes, and try to see those same stars.

Originally posted by DCPatriot
reply to post by firegoggles

 

Is that a broken windshield on the Space Shuttle?

Nope. It's a reflection of the ISS in the pane. Take a look at how the Shuttle and ISS dock, and you'll see what's happening.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Originally posted by DCPatriot
reply to post by firegoggles

 

Is that a broken windshield on the Space Shuttle?

Nope. It's a reflection of the ISS in the pane. Take a look at how the Shuttle and ISS dock, and you'll see what's happening.

gotta agree with you on that one,

found quite a good wep page with some good apollo pics and what not.

check it out...

www.geocities.com...

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
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.

You are correct and I second that thought. It's just banding, you get that on gradients when you reduce the amount of colors.

Anyone here that has photoshop, create a new image, fill it with a gradient. Then save it as a gif with only 128 colors. You will have the same banding.

Originally posted by BlasteR


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]

Hehehe, it's just lens flare. Tell NASA to invest in some lens hoods for their camera, that will help cut down lens flare.

reply to post by Zeus187


thanks for the site. lots of info!

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Originally posted by PeaceUk
What about the fact that there are no stars?
Is that normal?

It's normal if you aren't trying to photograph stars.

It's normal if you have anything bright and dim of high contrast in the photo. It's how camera exposures work.

You can only have so many stops of different +/- of light in a photo before data is lost, the darkest darks will not show up, and the brightest whites will be 'blown out'.

Here's an experiment for anyone with a camera, point it at a light in your house, and expose for that. Anything else around it not being lit up by that light will come out very dark, if it even shows up. Now point it to something dark in your house, and expose for that. Anything else around that is brighter, will come out very bright or perhaps even solid white.

Since the astronauts, the gear, etc is being lit up directly by bright sunlight and that is what the camera exposed for, anything else that is dark in the photo and not reflecting much light to the sensor of the camera will not show up in the photo, such as stars, and the blackness of space, which are not giving off much light.

The camera could have exposed for the stars and the blackness of space, but then the astronauts and the shuttle would have come out almost completely white and overexposed.

Here's some examples.

In the first photo, it's the normal photo I have not edited. The camera exposed for the earth and and the shuttle to get them correctly exposed. They are both being lit up by the same light (from the sun) so they both show up in the photo.


Now in this second photo, I simulated what the photo might look like if the camera exposed for the darkness of space. The stuff that was previously exposed correctly, is now overexposed.



And lastly, this is what it would look like if the camera exposed for only those small bright 'hotspots' on the shuttle that are already overexposed in the original photo, the really shiny things. In this last photo, the hotspots now have detail in them and are correctly exposed, but everything else is too dark.



In a nutshell, the stars do not show up in the photo because they are too dark and the camera did not expose for them, if the camera exposed for them they would show up, but everything else would be too bright. When I say "expose for them" I mean adjust the shutterspeed, like keep the shutter of the camera open for 8 seconds to capture the stars and the blackness, versus only being open for 1/15th of a second to capture the shuttle and earth which are much brighter and don't need the camera to suck in as much light.







[edit on 8-6-2008 by AgentScmidt]

Nice work so far. I find it slightly odd how hard some of you are trying
so touché'

I do want to thank you all for your top quality input I'm examining all the evidence put forth.

I have some mixed emotions on certain aspects of this discussion I'm gonna think about it a bit, and read over the thread and just make sure I've touched on all the things I found of interest.

I'll try and examine the images for consistency within the boundaries of a "converted photo".

Once this was brought to my attention I was like "oh yea that" as it is a valid point as I've seen it first hand myself. Never the less for me to be fully satisfied I want to take a closer look. Let's see if the evidence for conversion is uniform throughout all the images.

And for the no stars image theory. I think to fully settle this we need to find a photo that includes what Fstop was used and so on directly from NASA(I think they have some images with settings listed.. I think..)...
So, if possible that is.

Another thing for us to do to really put this away for good, would be to find a direct link from the NASA page that has an enormous amount of pics from all the shuttle missions. WE can then see if any of the pics show stars at any time.

I myself would expect at some point during one of the shuttle missions the camera would be oriented away from the direct glare or washout of the sun. At the least perhaps someone at some point would take a photo with a slightly longer exposure.

In all this time and all these shuttle missions later, your telling me that "no one" would want a picture of Earth with stars in the background?

Wouldn't you want a nice vivid picture of earth in a massive star background "setting" if you were an astronaut? Or even if you were NASA to pump up the beauty of space exploration and so forth.
I can see it now, the image might be titled...
"Earth in a Sea of Stars" by NASA the Picasso masta's...get your copy today!

Where are those images at?

Oh, and is what some are calling "banding" the thumbprint looking lines against dark space?

I do hate to drive things in the ground like this, but I may as well be as sure as one can be about this.

Thank all!

Originally posted by firegoggles

Wouldn't you want a nice vivid picture of earth in a massive star background "setting" if you were an astronaut? Or even if you were NASA to pump up the beauty of space exploration and so forth.
I can see it now, the image might be titled...
"Earth in a Sea of Stars" by NASA the Picasso masta's...get your copy today!

Where are those images at?

It could be done, but you would have to take 2 photos with the camera, one exposed for the stars, and one exposed for the earth. Then you would have to use photoshop to combine the two photos.

But then technically, it would be fake unfortunately. Not quite fake since it's stuff that's really there, but it would be called a composite (I think that's the word I'm looking for) not a photograph.


Just for the beauty of it, here's one I just threw together in photoshop.

befoar


aftar

Oo! Oo! A thought came to my mind: Why are there more videos showing the landing of the space shuttle from the perspective of people on ground zero than astronauts while inside the space shuttle? Huh? Huh?

reply to post by AgentScmidt


Thanks for trying to explain further. And yea that's a cool pic you made.
After seeing that my questioning "where are photos from NASA like this" really stands out as well... a good question

OK's it's really late here I had better relax. I will gather up my info and post what may be some of my final comments tomorrow some time.

Thanks man

reply to post by pikypiky



Now the cognitive juices are flowing! LOL
Great question!
I'll add that to my research tomorrow afternoon. thanks