NASA caught manipulating photos

reply to post by Movhisattva


I agree. She is not telling the truth. When 3 color filters are used, they are not taken hours apart. This would cause every picture taken by Cassini to be blurred and showing movement.

Let's debunk her story by visiting the Cassini page and see other pictures taken, and reading the captions. Also, take note of the last image on the page where it shows a photo using the 3 different color filter method being used. The end result was a natural color photo and no, there are no colorful halos visible.

www.boston.com...

reply to post by Krusty the Klown


Hmm.... Here's a Sample of NASA's Flawed Air Brush Technology . Either that , or their Phototech just got Lazy and did a Bad Job of it .

What is in this Released NASA Moon Photo that they do not want the Public to see ? A Building on the Moon , Or......?


i297.photobucket.com...

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


Oh, for crying out loud, that image has been discussed to death!! It is a digital artifact, has to do with the merging/scanning (not sure of the technical details) and is NOT anything earth-shattering. I am continually amazed at the ignorance on these topics, and the fact that OLD stuff keeps popping up, and people see it and think they've "discovered" something. The game "Whack-a-Mole" comes to mind... :shk:

Unfortunately, this will continue indefinitely, since NOTHING that is ever posted onto the Internet seems to ever go away. Those who have a rational mindset, and a brain with more than two neurons to rub together, are able, though, to do searches and other research to check the validity of all of these ridiculous claims.

Besides that, why doesn't anyone ask the logical question?? "IF there were "something" there, then WHY would the image have been released at ALL???"

Rational thinking, and logic, appears more and more lacking on ATS, lately.

Further, to the OP: The image was NOT "altered" by NASA!! This has clearly been pointed out.

Someone else has already said that she did it, and created an artistic depiction, compiled from valid NASA image sources. The fact that it looked pretty likely contributed to its inclusion on a "NASA" website....and its being taken down? Perhaps merely BECAUSE it was 'artistic', and therefore not 'scientific', on the particular website section where it was displayed.

I mean, this is beyond silly, this back-and-forth over a nothing event!

It shows so well, though, that people will not due a modicum of actual looking and around and questioning to verify, as long as WHATEVER they read, no matter how incorrect, complies with their pre-conceived mindset to "believe" in "Big, bad evil NASA".

Tragic. Ignorance.

It doesn't matter what was cut out that much. What matters the most is the fact they do it. If they wanted to cover up extraterrestrial ships in the past, present or future, they would simply do it and they do - Mars is a great example when it comes to color manipulation. It's good that this fact has been brought up in the MSM for once. Hopefully it makes people think a bit more and laugh a bit less, because this isn't funny. NASA is a government agency, not some scientifical Disneyland, so when SHTF and it will be a possible cataclysmic disaster type scenario, they will be the last ones to admit they knew it all along. Maybe people should take Richard C. Hoagland more seriously sometimes. He may look like a lunatic to some, but at least he's not covering things up so bad that even a 5th grader would laugh. Go figure. NASA = Never A Straight Answer...and if you get one, it's usually the opposite of what's really going on. 2010 is the year of revelations and it hasn't ended yet. Sit back and enjoy the fireworks.

Jee whiz id have thought everyone would be aware the whole world of photography is a stage managed production.....
I am not at all shocked.The nasa photos have been proven to be manipulations many times over.
Sure theres always those who will close their every orfice to facts and stroll the party walk in blind, dumb, faith......
How many lies is too many lies?(but thats a thread in itself)
I am anxiously awaiting more data from countries new to the space game...I believe that Japan, would be first to disclose if they get the evidence.

reply to post by weedwhacker


" Oh, for crying out loud, that image has been discussed to death!! It is a digital artifact, has to do with the merging/scanning (not sure of the technical details) and is NOT anything earth-shattering. I am continually amazed at the ignorance on these topics, and the fact that OLD stuff keeps popping up, and people see it and think they've "discovered" something. The game "Whack-a-Mole" comes to mind... "

Oh , so that is the Explaination then ? Duh , I am Glad you Cleared that up for me .........

Originally posted by seti_starr
reply to post by Movhisattva

 

I agree. She is not telling the truth. When 3 color filters are used, they are not taken hours apart. This would cause every picture taken by Cassini to be blurred and showing movement.

If done correctly the motion can be compensated for with digital manipulation by using luminence + rgb compositing, but doing it better than she did. I could easily recreate the photo she was trying to create but do a much better job. The raw unedited images she used were from this list:
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
It doesn't take hours for a moon to move that far, only minutes. There is nothing to "debunk," she was telling the truth. Your link contains a similar description of compositing a color image from Cassini:

The color information in the colorized view is artificial: it is derived from red, green and blue images taken at nearly the same time and phase angle as the clear filter image.

In other words, they used a clear filter (ie, no filter) image for the luminence channel, and red, green, blue images went in to make the chrominance channels, probably after some manipulations to make them look consistent. You can get away with a lot in the chrominance channels as long as your luminence channel is solid. They essentially did what she did, but properly. The thing is, NASA also provides all the raw images like those listed above. The colorful images are for PR purposes.

reply to post by ngchunter


Thanks for that info! But if the different filter images are taken at virtually the same time or close to the same time, then why did her image have that multi-color halo effect?

If I was NASA, I would hire you!!!

Originally posted by Seti_Starr
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Thanks for that info! But if the different filter images are taken at virtually the same time or close to the same time, then why did her image have that multi-color halo effect?

If I was NASA, I would hire you!!!

edit on 8-10-2010 by Seti_Starr because: Changed smiley face icon

Close to the same time isn't good enough. Let me demonstrate:
www.youtube.com...
In this time lapse animation of Jupiter, every frame is a stack from a 1 minute long video. Even at this distance, you can't wait longer than 1 minute or Jupiter's rotation and the moon's motion will cause blurring. If I were in orbit of Jupiter and that much closer so that the moon took up a significant portion of the frame, it would be even far more sensitive to motion. 60 seconds would be orders of magnitude too long. In this particular case they weren't just shooting Dione and Titan; based on the image ID numbers it's clear they were taking pictures of a second target between dione and titan images. In fact, they were taking pics of Saturn and her rings, as well as the moon Helene, at the same time, switching back and forth in alternating images. The goal was probably more to capture Dione and Titan at consistent intervals of time for time lapse construction so that the entire transit could be viewed without jittering. That means allowing enough time to pass between images to reorient the spacecraft to capture their other targets as well.

reply to post by ngchunter


Right on!!!! Thank you so much for taking the time to explain this!!!

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
The photo is clearly labeled a Color Composite.

I guess some people don't know what a composite is.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

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

And it is an perfect example that Nasa can not be trusted, as the manupilate pictures...
I dont care if it is for ' it looks better this way' , it is not the Raw image, one can Never know for sure what happend here....

reply to post by JimOberg


i am not exactly sure. . but it was on this documentary called Ufo The Greatest Story Ever Denied. . ofcourse the authenticity can always be questioned. . it was a good watch thou

Originally posted by ChemBreather
And it is an perfect example that Nasa can not be trusted, as the manupilate pictures...

Actually it's a perfect example of why youtube videos claiming conspiracies can't be trusted; NASA had nothing to do with the image manipulation here. We know exactly what happened and we also have full access to the raw images.

AH-HA!

"Oh NASA you've done it again!"


S&F from me

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
AH-HA!

"Oh NASA you've done it again!"

S&F from me

What are you claiming NASA has done? Are you aware that they did not create this color composite? Are you aware that the raw unedited image files are available from the Cassini website and are linked to above?

1. NASA takes a series of pictures with various filters of Titan and Rhea (edit: fail. It's Dione. Not Rhea) with the Cassini probe
2. The raw pictures are uploaded to the NASA servers
3. The Planetary Society blogger finds the series of pictures, makes a (slighly failed) composite out of them and posts it on her Blog.
4. The authors of NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day find the composite, think it's cool and post it as a picture of the day.
5. Somone spots the bad compositing job

Seems quite a reasonable explanation to me. How does a conspiracy fit in to all of this?

reply to post by ngchunter

Are you aware that the raw unedited image files are available from the Cassini website and are linked to above?

Tragically, we see similar examples such as this countless times, on various subjects of interest to ATS members. THIS example involved some anonymous YouTube user, and his/her incorrect assessment of circumstances, based on a less-than-thorough investigation into the provenance of the image he/she used in their video demonstration.

The ever-ready mantra of "big, bad NASA" is just too easy for 'conspiracists' to jump in with, each time....they gleefully follow ANY hint of "NASA wrongdoing", yet somehow never manage to notice that they base those judgements on, usually incorrect and flawed initial (anonymously provided) "analyses".

It's becoming more and more common, here, and on many topics as well. Jumping on a 'bandwagon' without a proper vetting of the information offered either as personal conjecture by the OP, or brought forward by an OP, of others' work, usually because OP is in agreement. And such sloppy investigating prior laying something out for discussion is truly disheartening to see.

What's doubly frustrating is the lingering after-effects of anything psoted on the Web....for many years, the same incorrect information and assumptions remain, someitmes unchecked and unchallenged, there for every gullible and incurious person to stumble upon and swallow without any rational review or doubt.

Doubled, for some reason....Grrrr!

reply to post by mcrom901


Your avatar is far out.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown

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

No it hasn't

antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by ChemBreather

And it is an perfect example that Nasa can not be trusted, as the manupilate pictures...
I dont care if it is for ' it looks better this way' , it is not the Raw image, one can Never know for sure what happend here....

Well you could just go look at the RAW images...

ngchunter posted links to them www.abovetopsecret.com...




reply to post by weedwhacker


I agree with you, but I wouldn't get to frustrated over this stuff, these NASA photo conspiracy guys are laughable. Saying a composited image has been manipulated is like saying they took that photo with a camera.

If anyone is serious about looking for photos that have been manipulated to cover up some big secret you should start with the ones that NASA claim are the original, untouched photos. Declaring that a composite has been Photoshoped isn't going to blow any lids.