NASA caught manipulating photos

Originally posted by badw0lf

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by Krusty the Klown

 

cheers buddy.... nice thread... tnx

don't expect anything from 'Never Any Straight Answers'....

they never manipulate any photos.... NO, NEVER.... "probably just a glitch"

Cheers buddy.... nice reply... tnx

don't expect anything from the crew who speculate NASA are totally disingenuous.

they never contribute anything to a discussion except add to the emotional fud going on already.... NO, NEVER... "Never Any Straight Answers" is all you get plus jibe comments

Oh now I feel dirty...

I find the explanation given by the lady who photoshopped the image, Emily Lakdawalla, rather plausible:

"Cassini takes colour pictures by snapping three sequential photos through red, green, and blue filters," she said. "In the time that separated the three frames, Dione moved, so if I did a simple color composite I would be able to make Titan look right, but not Dione; or Dione look right, but not Titan.

"So I aligned Dione, cut it out, and then aligned Titan, and then had to account for the missing bits of shadow where the bits of Dione had been in two of the three channels." Read more: www.news.com.au...

Source

Originally posted by franspeakfreeHaha touche

, admittedly that it has been quiet on the Never A Straight Answer threads, but here is one in particular you may want to read, not because it was created by me, but because there are many views expressed by many knowledgable members from this site it goes in to great detail how Nasa could be keeping more than we know from us. (for our own protection of course :@@)

NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked?

edit on 8-10-2010 by franspeakfree because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the heads up frans, I'll check out the thread.

I was aware that NASA used certain techniques to alter images, but this is the first time I've seen them using Adobe Photoshop to do it.

Couldnt they have just been making it a clearer and nicer picture? Maybe there was a blur of real dust on the lens
that took away from the beauty of the photo? Who knows.

reply to post by Movhisattva


It does seem plausible.

Logically that means that every NASA composite image should have the same photoshop or some form of manipulation.

Do any experts on ATS know why space photos are shot using 3 separate red, blue and green filters - 3 separate images? Obviously they do it for a reason.

Originally posted by rajaten
Couldnt they have just been making it a clearer and nicer picture? Maybe there was a blur of real dust on the lens
that took away from the beauty of the photo? Who knows.

A possible problem with that hypothesis is that it could be seen as bad science.

Investigators should never interfere or tamper with evidence. It is seen as fabrication and academic fraud.

Uh, what does Ms. Lakdawalla, who works PR for a private association, have to do with "NASA" allegedly faking the photo?

reply to post by JimOberg



Jim, just to clarify, what do you mean by PR for a private organisation in this context?

The person you mentioned may not work for NASA, but the photo appeared on a NASA website which means NASA has vetted and sanctioned the image legally.

P.S. The image on the NASA address has now been removed!

Maybe it has something to do with this aswell?
Just came across it now

www.nasa.gov...

Cheers
Brady

damn had seen a documentary on youtube recently. . where they had like a few ex-NASA guys telling that they airbrushed a lotta stuff and it was a normal thing to do. .

reply to post by GetRadNZ


Here is an interesting quote from that article.

"Analyzing the image color ratios is a great way to really enhance the otherwise subtle color variations and make apparent some of the processes at play in the Saturn system," said Amanda Hendrix, Cassini deputy project scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

Maybe that is the reason for the separate red, blue and green images, although it does not state it specifically.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
I was aware that NASA used certain techniques to alter images, but this is the first time I've seen them using Adobe Photoshop to do it.

There is a thread on this site that shows without any doubt at all that NASA have used and continue using photoshop, do you know how I know this?........simple, they admitted to it by posting a message on their web page and then when one member contacted them about it, the message suddenly disappeared. .I believe the thread was about 'enhanced' moon footage/photos to celebrate the anniversary of the moon landings.

Theres more.......

Nasa Deletes Sspicious Photo From Website

NASA not responding to FOIA about atypical size and luminisioty of Apollo moon "sun" photos,

Every photo on NASA discloses if it has been touched up.

Nothing new here

reply to post by Thurisaz


Really?

If this is the case then why do so many people not know this?

Is this NASA policy?

reply to post by franspeakfree


Looks like I have much more homework to do.....I don't need to see sunlight anyway,,,,,,

reply to post by franspeakfree


Based on your previous evidence....

I should not be surprised by the fact that this image is now not available?

Originally posted by jimistoned
damn had seen a documentary on youtube recently. . where they had like a few ex-NASA guys telling that they airbrushed a lotta stuff and it was a normal thing to do. .

you're just imagining things. you probably saw the show where some woman SAYS she was told by a NASA guy that he airbrushed photos. now do you remember?

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Jim, just to clarify, what do you mean by PR for a private organisation in this context?
The person you mentioned may not work for NASA, but the photo appeared on a NASA website which means NASA has vetted and sanctioned the image legally.

Emily works for the "Planetary Society" in California.

As for NASA 'legally vetting' everything on its website, that's just silly. You made it up.

Emily works for the "Planetary Society" in California.

As for NASA 'legally vetting' everything on its website, that's just silly. You made it up.[quote]

No I didn't Jim

You may need to scrub up on your law studies.

If an organisation lets an individual represent them in any way, be it in any form, they have assumed legal sanction for their representations.

You should look it up. It is international law.

"It is silly?" - thanks for the value judgement Jim, just because there is an idea you have not heard of does not mean it is silly, it is just a factor you have not considered in your evaluation.

edit on 8/10/1010 by Krusty the Klown because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/10/1010 by Krusty the Klown because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/10/1010 by Krusty the Klown because: (no reason given)

Does anyone here know anything about charge coupled devices? How data is transmitted? How that data is processed to create color images? What "composite" means? Or is everyone just going to vent for no reason rather than do some basic research?