NASA Anomalies in Photos- A Cover Up?

ive seen these pictures on ats and other sites before.. it was discussed but no one knew exactly. i think it was discussed somewhere at conspiracy master john lear... and then some talked about the second (secret) ISS and so on... but anyway, those pictures were made public.

[edit on 9/6/2008 by rxnnxs]

reply to post by Zeus187


If you show some people a photo with something "anomalous" most people are confused and others are just trying to figure it out. Some, yet, just accept it altogether as legitimate. Spending a little bit of your time is not just applicable to the thread itself in helping people understand the facts. It also speaks volumes about what kind of person you are. Everyone can get photoshop.. But some people are just better than others at understanding anomalous things in photographs and knowing how to use the software to bring out the details that may not be so evident in the original photos.

-ChriS

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

i hear where your're coming from, but i think they're just really high resolution. they don't exactly send them boys and gals up there with disposable cameras

reply to post by Jean Luc Picard


In one of my earlier posts I posted a link to the discussion we had previously about these photos. In that thread is this link from the OP Dukesy. That link has all the original photos.

You can see them here:
www.texasjim.com...

They are quite striking photographs. Pretty impressive stuff.

-ChriS

Originally posted by 2nd2no1

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

i hear where your're coming from, but i think they're just really high resolution. they don't exactly send them boys and gals up there with disposable cameras

To me, I think the fakeness comes from the lighting that is on everything. It looks like it was done profesionally in a studio with at least 8 different lights, every part of the shuttle and astronaut are perfectly lit.

But who knows, light could be different up there, not what we are used to seeing on earth.

reply to post by BlasteR


thanks for that. I thought they were of higher resolution, unfortunately not.

[edit on 9/6/08 by Jean Luc Picard]

I want to thank everyone for posting. I have went back and read through and feel we have covered most the points that were brought up.

I'm sorry I let the thread get a little too far ahead of me. I'm not used to getting so many responses so quickly. (putting effort into having more quality post presentation does pay off after all). I'm usually having such rapid thoughts I just spew out a 1000's words a minute without a single period in fear I'll lose the train of though ehe. But NO MORE! LOL FOCUS Danial san Focus! *ahem* *cough* *cough*. OK Back on topic.

If you feel you have a brought up a valid point that was not addressed by all means bring it to my attention.

I'm sorry if this thread seems redundant to some. I read the other threads and feel we are actually getting a little deeper into it on this one. Perhaps I'm biased a fuzz

Recapping some "key points".

Possibly over exposure would result in any slower shutter speeds during the image capture. And that would explain no stars, at least we think that explains it, read on.

So then we need to come up with some information as to "what" photos are taken with "what" settings if possible. To prove that beyond the shadow of a doubt that the stars won't EVER show up in space photos! That just sounds wrong even, in all this time ALL the photos that have been put forth from NASA, no stars...weird and stinky if you ask me.

I myself would try to get a shot with the earth and stars in it. I would let it over expose to capture the stars then with photo editing stuff just select the part of the photo like the ISS and Shuttle for example and reduce the "over exposed" effect with filters available in most photo editing software. At least and attempt to get a shot that is middle of the road, slightly overexposed but yet letting some stars show up in the image.

And it wouldn't have to be a shutter speed open for like minutes, just anywhere from 1 to 3 seconds would be plenty to capture stars. In camera world a 1 second exposure is a long exposure. Or perhaps this scenario would or should have came up, if the ISS was between the sun and shuttle just right. There should be an eclipse effect present and during that time you should be able to capture a star filled background if you get all your settings and timing just right. I'll post another pic I just downloaded from NASA website of an example (kinda) of what I'm talking about. Even in the pic I'm posting I'm amazed that no stars are present at all. If someone has some pictures with Earth and stars in the background please post them so we can compare and try to determine how under or over exposed it is and use it perhaps as a comparison tool.

OK addressing the cartoon effect one person pointed out he believes it happened during conversion. Which I can buy that on the surface no problem I have converted down to less colors from a huge bitmap to a not so huge .JPEG and used so on and have seen that cartoon effect sure.
But lets ask some questions.

Why is it that only a very small portion of the land mass seems to have been converted then?

Why is it that the portion with color error from reducing or converting the pic from one file type to another or reduced in amount of color like dropping from 32bit to say 256 colors, why is it that it selects an area only on earth and in the exact shape of either some land mass or cloud cover or a little of both. Are you guys expecting me to believe that during this conversion process that it just by chance had the color messed up just in that area over the land mass or whatever. Thats really hard to swallow if your looking at the picture we should see evidence for the color reduction or gradient fill, whatever you want to call it, we should be seeing it throughout the photo. But instead we see an area that looks as if it were selected by human hands IMHO. Just though I should point that out.

Addressing the objects:
It would appear that either there is a double pane glass present either taken through a window or that's just how the lens has to be (doubled up maybe) because they are in space after all.(aren't they?)

So it does look like ghosting almost like someone bumped the camera, so you can see a "doubling effect" on certain things.

I'm not sure if it rules out ALL the objects and I'm not saying any object in a photo is a UFO, as much junk and trash as there is floating around up there I'm surprised we don't see many more "objects" in photos. Brings me to the question of, "Why don't we see more more satellites" in these photos there are a huge number of satellites in orbit presently.

I had better stop there and trying to find a way to wrap this up but I'm just no where near fully satisfied as to the "final truth". And like so many things here on ATS it may be ultimately impossible to prove one way or the other on some of this.

On this final thought on the "no stars" topic. I understand the theories put forth I really do. And would feel safe saying you guys are right on it, if it wasn't for the fact that you can't see stars in ANY of their mission photos for years and years. Something just stinks, it's on the edge of my mind but I can't get it to surface.Could there be any NASA photos out there that in fact "do" have stars in them that are not "deep space" exposures. I would really like to see them to give me a reference or a "range" if you will as to just what NASA's imaging capabilities are. So if anyone has any NASA images that you think will shed light on this subject please post.

Not sure if I can let this thread go or not it still feels like we are missing something in plain sight if you ask me. I'll let whats been put forth "sink in" and watch for more comments/input.

Thanks all!

reply to post by firegoggles


Sorry If I sounded like I was being negative about bringing up that these photos were focused upon in different threads. Revisiting these types of things can be extremely productive as sometimes threads that deserve attention sometimes do not receive it. Sometimes the unpopular threads are the most interesting! Revisiting lets more people hone in on what the facts are and you can always end up with an overall different conclusion in the thread because of that. Wasn't trying to be rude by pointing out the other thread.


I have only one thread in which I focused on flaming someone since I've joined ATS but it was necessary..

We talked in the other thread about this particular photo in this series and how it looks odd for some reason.:
www.texasjim.com...

This one is just mindblowing:
www.texasjim.com...

-ChriS