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 ArMaP
What I think is that the original photos, after being converted to digital format already looked like that,
we can see that the lower left area is slightly darker than the rest, so it's natural that conversion to a digital format would create those "ridges",
What I am trying to refute is the idea that those four images are just one, like you said on your first post about this image
And I know that many images are "retouched" to make them more "appealing" (or something like that), so I wouldn't be surprised if this image was subjkected to some of that treatment. After all, they even faked the second image.
Is it that hard to understand?
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by easynow
(I'm still wondering why no one has mentioned that Photoshop did not yet exist in 1969? Is someone going to allege that the Russians were able to "fake" images from their spacecraft Zond 7 ???
Just what sort of image-altering technology DID they have 40 years ago??)
Joseph Stalin made use of photo retouching for propaganda purposes.[3] On May 5, 1920 his predecessor Lenin held a speech for Soviet troops that Leon Trotsky attended. Stalin had Trotsky retouched out of a photograph showing Trotsky in attendance. Nikolai Yezhov, an NKVD leader photographed alongside Stalin in at least one photograph, was edited out of the photograph after his execution in 1940.
Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by weedwhacker
I'm sorry...."fake"??
yes, fake, and obvious fakes to say the least.
Originally posted by jra
I guess you all can blame me for the image getting changed. I sent an email asking about why the image was retouched and I got a reply saying this:
Thanks for letting us know about the problem with that image.
We checked with the folks in the photo lab here, and they believe that the negative for that image probably has a large scratch in that area. The cloning pattern that you mentioned is a remnant from an earlier version of the print using a method that is no longer in use today.
The photo lab has provided us with a “cleaner” version of the photo that isn’t as yellow and doesn’t have the cloning pattern. We will replace the photo as soon as possible.
Zond-5 through Zond-8 returned film images of the Moon and Earth from 1968 to 1970. The camera system was developed at the Moscow State University of Geodesy and Cartography (MIIGAiK) under Boris N. Rodionov. Zond-6 and 8 carried a 400 mm camera using 13 × 18 cm frames of panchromatic film. Zond-7 carried a 300 mm camera shooting on 5.6 × 5.6 cm film (both color and panchromatic). The original Zond-8 negatives have been digitized in Moscow to about 8000 × 6000 pixels, and are still among the best close images of that planet.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mcrom901
Yes, but to you and too easynow....the implications were that the images from Zond 7 were computer-manipulated!!!
WHY would they be "faked"?? Enhanced, yes. Made to look "better", perhaps.
BUT, is it the contention of you both that the entire Soviet Zond series of space missions were "faked"???
This is the thing I have a problem with...this nit-picking, and usually dis-information that results. As seen with this baloney about the photos of Earth, taken from space. THEY ARE REAL, even if altered later.
the problem has been fixed.....
*cough* *cough*
On September 1, 1977, Colonel Charles H. Senn, USAF Chief, Community Relations Division, Office of Information sent a letter to Lt. General Duward L. Crow, USAF (Ret.), working at NASA. In the letter Col. Senn said “I sincerely hope you are successful in preventing a reopening of UFO investigations.” The letter was sent in copy form to other offices as well. In the end he was successful in preventing the reopening. In this case, Col. Senn violated his office charter by not being community relations oriented and definitely not aimed at providing information at the title of his office defines as proper. This should be a starting place for an investigation of why this and other P.I. offices did not and are not freely providing UFO information.
www.mufon.com...
Duward L. Crow
Crow was appointed Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force. He retired from the Air Force on August 1, 1974.[1] He was subsequently named Associate Deputy Administrator of NASA in 1975
en.wikipedia.org...
hey easy... "take it easy"
Originally posted by easynow
ahhh i see you also noticed one of the leak detectors
not that we need it but here's more evidence that shows NASA lies !
"standard responses to UFO public inquiries"
www.nicap.org...
Google Video Link |
I think I worded that sentence in a way that may have given a wrong impression. What I wanted to say was that the apparent replacement of some areas of Eath's rim by black happened on the digital version, because it's easier for that to happen, specially in an image for which they say that was "retouched".
Originally posted by mcrom901
yups... the artifacts were already there in the prints prior scanning... after all the analogous techniques of 'retouching' quite well match up from that era...
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean, could you please rephrase it? Thanks in advance.
i'm sorry... but i have to disagree with you on that one... you cannot have identical 'pixelated' compression artifacts.... which on the contrary seem 'softened'...
Obviously, I don't have access to the original (physical) photos or the first generation digital or the other generations until we reach the one you posted. In the same way that you cannot present real proof of what happened.
well.. you're very much free to any opinion... so is everybody else in respect to their observations.... don't tell me what we conclude here has any affect on tomorrow's sunrise... which in the worst case, would result in the image getting 'removed' or 'replaced'... so in other words, i have not seen any substantiation in your refuter, except probabilities...
I have said that many times, the first time I noticed that was some three or four years ago.
lol... mutual ground for peace...
I know that photo and I know how it can be done, either on the negative or on a positive copy, but just because it's possible doesn't mean it was done.
check the second image...
any instructional mess.... the af has to be there
Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by mcrom901
what's really amazing is, there are people defending the government lies and do so because they are either on the payroll , completely ignorant or can't handle their belief system being shattered. we have people in this very thread discussing Soviet and DoD images and screaming "THEY ARE REAL" when they have no way of really knowing if that's true and i find THAT more fascinating then the ufo subject itself !
here's some bullet points, possible fact list you might like,
NASA deliberately lied to the world about Apollo 12 and their actual activities immediately after landing on the lunar surface.
NASA utilized a covert means of communication on the lunar surface, the audio and transcripts of which were entirely stricken from/off the public record
NASA conducted a covert EVA, at least partially exiting the spacecraft via the +X hatch while actively concealing it, never declaring doing it.
NASA did not publicly declare or show the world the imagery of the unique perspective of Statio Cognitium shot during this SEVA.
NASA deliberately sanitized public post-mission documentation to exclude any references to this covert SEVA.
The Astronauts deliberately lied and sanitized their public declarations about the mission to hide evidence of their true complete activities on the lunar surface.
NASA lied about Apollo 15 when they claimed that the declared SEVA during that mission was an Apollo first from the lunar surface.
this pretty much sums it up,
"If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough, people will believe you are telling the truth"
The Big Lie
Originally posted by fishspeaker
Here are the facts for you :