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.
Originally posted by MOTT the HOOPLE
Take a good look at the MRO photos of Phobos too see a photoshop substrate! There all painted fakes! There more Faker than Pamela Anderson's Boobs!
Originally posted by ecoparity
Originally posted by MOTT the HOOPLE
Take a good look at the MRO photos of Phobos too see a photoshop substrate! There all painted fakes! There more Faker than Pamela Anderson's Boobs!
It would probably take an orbiter to fully map those moons and a team of NASA photo techs to airbrush them. She tried to go up another cup size but the government stepped in when they figured out it would create a gravity wave capable of throwing the Earth into a new orbit.
Originally posted by Chovy
That's evidence for me.
Originally posted by ecoparity
I guess where I differ from the skeptics on this is that I come out of it with a verdict of "inconclusive". I don't find the witness to be "unbelievable", her story has been consistent over time and though I have some issues with elements of it I was able to find that other elements might fit. Without being able to verify the security architecture and any programs under which keyhole imagery might have been sent to NASA I can't really reach a solid conclusion either way. As usual I've ended up with more questions in exchange for a few possible answers, a typical dilemma with UFO stories. If there was even one corroborating witness from NASA I'd feel much stronger about the case.
On April 6, 1998 Dr. Malin immediately released a distorted, low contrast image of the face to the international media (figure 1) and proclaimed that the "face was just a pile of rocks".
This raw image of the "Face" was distorted and so stretched out that it was immediately said to look more like a "sandal print or a stuffed chili pepper" than a face, by the New York Times.
Originally posted by JimOberg
I don't think you differ all that much from me. It's the 'inconclusive' nature of so much of this testimony that's so darned frustrating.
What I think can be concluded about Hare's testimony is NOT that she was in any way a deliberate deceiver, but that she was extremely gullible of things other people told her, and did not know anough technical stuff to find factual objections to it -- e.g. her credulous repeat of the story that aliens helped Apollo-13 get back to Earth alive. Or it's possible she didn't understand stuff she overheard or saw (e.g., her claim that satellites could resolve the code numbers on golf balls, and did so for the 'Bay of Pigs' invasion -- when she meant the Cuban Missile Crisis).
And the argument is NOT that 'people who report UFO stories from inside the space program', as a class, all have character flaws (like being extremely credulous) BECAUSE they tell these stories --
The argument is that "some people who are extremely credulous" (a category that we know exists in large numbers) wind up telling UFO stories they heard about while inside the space program, BECAUSE they don't know any better.
Which, as I've argued before, is entirely understandable, explainable, and NOT evidence for real UFOs inside the space program.
Originally posted by ByteChanger
Sorry if this has been posted already. The best case I know of for air brushing or altering photo's is the Cydonia photo's of the 'Face on Mars'.
On April 6, 1998 Dr. Malin immediately released a distorted, low contrast image of the face to the international media (figure 1) and proclaimed that the "face was just a pile of rocks".
This raw image of the "Face" was distorted and so stretched out that it was immediately said to look more like a "sandal print or a stuffed chili pepper" than a face, by the New York Times.
A few hours after releasing the distorted, low contrast image known as the "cat box" to the international media, NASA posted a very different image of the MGS "Face" (SP1-22003) on their web site. (figure 1) This image had the distortion corrected and the contrast enhanced.
Originally posted by ByteChanger
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Thanks for checking the source. Did you read this part?
A few hours after releasing the distorted, low contrast image known as the "cat box" to the international media, NASA posted a very different image of the MGS "Face" (SP1-22003) on their web site. (figure 1) This image had the distortion corrected and the contrast enhanced.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Yes I read that part, and noted it says nothing about the airbrushing you mentioned.
Until MSSS (Malin Space Science Systems) releases full ancillary data regarding date and time of acquisition of the MGS picture, we can only guess as to time and angle of camera and the incident angle of lighting from the Sun.
The MOLA data substantiate the general characteristics of the optical view of the Face in Cydonia and therefore must be regarded as confirmation of the various elements of symmetry and facial features that have led planetary SETI investigators to postulate that it may be an ancient, eroded, but deliberately sculpted landform on Mars, evidence of activity by some intelligent beings
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You can make certain observations about the angle of the sun just by looking at a photograph. You may not be able to determine the exact angle, but it's pretty easy to tell if the illumination is coming from the left or the right, or if the angle of illumination is shallow or steep. The evidence speaks for itself in that regard, just look at the angle and length of the shadows.
Originally posted by zorgon
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You can make certain observations about the angle of the sun just by looking at a photograph. You may not be able to determine the exact angle, but it's pretty easy to tell if the illumination is coming from the left or the right, or if the angle of illumination is shallow or steep. The evidence speaks for itself in that regard, just look at the angle and length of the shadows.
This is a NAVY Clementine image from the color data set...
Please tell me which way the sun is shining on this image...
And ArMap... bite your tongue Let someone else have a go
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ByteChanger
You can make certain observations about the angle of the sun just by looking at a photograph. You may not be able to determine the exact angle, but it's pretty easy to tell if the illumination is coming from the left or the right, or if the angle of illumination is shallow or steep. The evidence speaks for itself in that regard, just look at the angle and length of the shadows.
The catbox photo was not an overhead view, so I think the angled view is what the author of your source is calling a "distortion".
It tries to objectively look at the evidence and explain why the images may look different due to logical explanations without implying that NASA is doing some kind of image manipulation to keep the truth from us.
I never said the feature wasn't interesting, it's very interesting, I only find claims of some kind of coverup by NASA to be dubious.