Are NASA Photoshopping Lunar Images?

Originally posted by topherman420

Originally posted by DuceizBack

Originally posted by topherman420

Originally posted by DuceizBack
Man.

I promise, If I ever become a scientist.
My life long dream will to log on to ATS, prove i'm a scientist.

Make a thread, and just take a dump on every conspiracy theorist.

How would you people feel if a credited scientist just sh***ed on everything you held to be true?


lmao.
I'd love to see that.
I bet you idiots would think I was payed off by the government.

Scientists do go through that themselves.....they are called theories and a many of them have been shat on by their own respected peers. Reason being....not the proper proof to back up their claim, and especially if they cannot produce the same results using the same methods as the presenter. This is why science strives to prove everything using stringent methods so they can prove without a doubt.

Thank you for pointing that out to us, welcome to the scientific world.

edit on 1-5-2011 by topherman420 because: (no reason given)

How dare you compare a scientific theory and a conspiracy theory created by nut jobs.


Conspiracy theorist, and rationalist are nothing alike.

I compare the two since they always try to compete with it and fail. And Im not entirely sure that I was mentioning anything in regards to rationalism, its kind of hard to test philosophy with scientific method.

Scientific theories are backed by evidence.

Everybody knows that a scientific theory is much different from the everyday use of theory.

Most conspiracy theorist have no evidence.
If they don't know something, they don't just say "well uh, I don't know"


They just say " well something happened, and I bet it was the NWO".

They make real rationalist like me look very bad.
If you want people who question main stream, look for a rational atheist, not a conspiracy theorist nut bordering on religious.

Okay I think theres a huge misunderstanding on my part here and i misinterpreted your quote...as being derogatory when it wasnt lol. Im defending science from someone who...is defending science? lol Does that make sense? I think I got something confused here correct me if Im wrong here lol

Edit: Took out some of the lengthy quotes for size of post was getting a bit big.

Yooz guyz exchange is humorous, lol.

My patented reply for people arguing that science is based on just theories, I tell them "The Bomb" works!

Originally posted by Illustronic
Yooz guyz exchange is humorous, lol.

My patented reply for people arguing that science is based on just theories, I tell them "The Bomb" works!

edit on 1-5-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)

So this whole pointless exchange was over the word theory? And my misinterpretation of what he said? lol

To me a theory is a theory until its proven as fact, scientific or otherwise. The meaning of the word is being split into hairs now. My main intention was in defence of science, which i had already admitted was a mistake on my part for a brain fart. Arguing with someone who was pretty much doing the same thing.
Yes funny as hell lol Im such a moron sometimes.

reply to post by topherman420


I'm on your sides BTW, I think you know that, just enjoying a chuckle along with friends.

Oh come on. NASA is filled with the brightest minds on the planet. You'd think they'd be able to make a good go of photoshopping something instead of putting a little box over the top of it. If they really did have something to hide, they wouldn't be so stupid to make it obvious. It's just a glitch or stiching error in the satellite image processing.

i would more side towords this just being a problem with the image processing or a reciving issue. if they were trying to fake it, they would probably make it look less obvious

reply to post by Noviz


And let me point out that NASA utilizes the best minds of private R&D companies as well as the greatest aerospace and aircraft manufactures in the world. It is not the lowest bid that wins a NASA account, but the most proven and demonstrated technology companies out there regardless if they are tax exempt or on the market. Its like people think NASA builds everything they use, like they are a manufacturing conglomerate or something. Well, they don't really.

The wide dispersed gained collaborative knowledge of melding this base of independent R&D and developmental/manufacturing free market company consortiums leads one clear thinker that if something was extraterrestrial in origin that one guy would have blown the whistle by now. And not from some nut case disgruntled ex-employee.

It seems one single story from some nut case trumps the millions of ex-employee's silence, and everything NASA is a lie, but the Russians et al are totally truthful. LOL!

reply to post by connorromanow


All of those Moon images that show the whole Moon or large areas with some definition are mosaics made with many smaller photos, with some small rectangular sections on the areas covered by the high definition photos.

As a high definition photo shows some place at a high definition, the area it shows is smaller than that of a low resolution photo, so it takes a long time to get full coverage (if ever) of any planet in high definition.

While that does not happen we will always see images like that, with what look like high definition "stamps" over a bigger, low resolution image.

But even with a full coverage (as it happens with the Clementine images) joining them together is not easy, even with programs made just for that (like ISIS, that can do that and much more.

So, it can be considered a processing issue, one that all people that are used to it expect.

What would be strange would be if all photos had the same light levels and the shadows in the same position.

oh it is for sure photoshopping here, they will tell us its because they try to paste together several high res images and it creates that effect, but thats some booooooooty!

Originally posted by blaenau2000
For years and years NASA have blurred and photoshopped images,
Question is why?

Why indeed, the thing that gets up my nose is nobody is investigating it, except for Richard C. Hoagland.

NASA.............NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER.

reply to post by downunderET


Maybe there's not that much to investigate, right?

I have seen some photos that were clearly altered, some on NASA sites, some on sites from people that present their versions of the photos as an alternative to NASA's versions, but not one of those alterations hid anything, they were "cosmetic" (and some clearly stupid) alterations.

That doesn't mean that NASA doesn't alter photos, but if they do I suppose that they are at least as capable as I am of doing it, and the only time I did it nobody could point what I had changed in one of my photos.

Originally posted by topherman420

To me a theory is a theory until its proven as fact, scientific or otherwise.

That's because you don't know the meaning of the word 'theory' within the context of science.

Anyway, back on topic: to mirror what someone else has already said, think about it! If these pics were photoshopped, you really think they'd leave such obvious marks? Or even release the images at all?

"Are NASA Photoshopping Lunar Images?"

Probably not, allthough how would I know for sure. But do you honestly, HONESTLY, believe that if NASA were photoshopping their images, they wouldn't do a better job than what is demonstrated in the examples posted by the topic starter? If NASA actually wanted to hide something in their images, you wouldn't be able to notice it.

Odd why NASA photoshops their images:

www.hq.nasa.gov...


They didn't even use Photoshop on that, looks like Microsoft Paint.

reply to post by Pervius




That's a good example of an altered photo on a NASA site.

It looks like that photo was taken from a book and someone decided that the grey sky was not good enough.

Originally posted by Pervius
Odd why NASA photoshops their images:

www.hq.nasa.gov...


They didn't even use Photoshop on that, looks like Microsoft Paint.

That image is from a book called "Apollo - View from Orbit" (NASA SP-362). The image as it actually appears in the book has a paragraph caption in that part of the sky, so whoever the source was for that image showing the sky blacked out just scanned the picture from the book and colored the sky black to remove the paragraph caption.

Here is the actual image that is in the book:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c33ca8c676bf.jpg[/atsimg]


...Or, we could just look at the original image to see what's there.

Here is the original image -- although this image is rotated 180 degrees relative to the image you posted. It is Apollo 16 Metric Camera image 2518 (NASA image number AS16-M-2518). In the foreground of the original image, about where that caption was in the book, there is the Command Module's HF antenna.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/11ac9416ae1c.jpg[/atsimg]
Image Source



It seems to me you are looking at an image that is at least 3rd generation -- the original had the HF antenna, which was removed to allow for the caption paragraph, which was removed again. However, the original still exists and is publicly available for all to see -- and even the image from the book (with the caption in tact) is still publicly available for all to see.

EVERY astronomical picture that is posted everywhere has undergone some sort of image-processing. Most of the image processing performed is contrast-enhancement and streching. Have you ever made a severely under exposed image in bad light, or under very flat light? Then you will know the value of image processing, for you can get acceptable results by multiplying the digital values with a certain constant to get an acceptable image. You stretch the contrast to spread the image values all over the histogram, else you just get a grey blob. Most astronomical cameras are B/W, and the onliest way to get them colourized is to photograph multiple images through filters, and then then add the different images.

So, of course, ALL NASA images (and ALL astronomical images by telescopes, etc), are 'photoshopped'. Of course, photoshop is not always used, there are a lot of software out there doing a better job on astronomical pictures than photoshop. (some of us even write our own software).

It is the same for medical imaging, but I don't ever see anybody complaining because their CAT-scan images has been photoshopped.

Soylent Green,

That's not the Apollo Command/Service module....you just found the best picture of Project Orion seen to date.

No wonder NASA used PaintShop to take it out of photos.

This is what it's supposed to look like:

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Pervius


You have project Orion mixed up. It's not is service yet.