NASA anomalies

  • 88 Replies
  • 12543 Views
Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #60 on: June 16, 2012, 03:16:17 PM »
You'll notice that the backgrounds don't match up.  The different patches of light and dark in the background do not repeat, align, or match up.  You can test this in Photoshop by copy/pasting one of the sets of stars over the other and flipping back and forth.  The pixels are different.  They weren't copied.   

What are you talking about? Did you even look at the image you provided?

What are you talking about?  Right above the second photo, I say:

Quote from: garygreen
Here is what it would look like if one of these patches of stars was a duplicate of the other:

The second pic is the one where I intentionally cloned the left-hand patch of dots over the right-hand patch of dots.  That's an example of what it would look like if someone had manipulated the image to duplicate one of the patches of dots.  That's your argument, right, that someone has copied one of the set of dots?

Here is what I mean:



I took the original photo and made a gif with the photo of what it would look like if these patches were copies of one another.  As you can see, they're not identical.  Again, I've tried to find a way to shrink or compress the photo in a way that will change the appearance of the background (to see if one could hide the duplication through image compression), and I've had no luck.

Stop comparing apples and oranges.
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #61 on: June 16, 2012, 06:43:19 PM »
You'll notice that the backgrounds don't match up.  The different patches of light and dark in the background do not repeat, align, or match up.  You can test this in Photoshop by copy/pasting one of the sets of stars over the other and flipping back and forth.  The pixels are different.  They weren't copied.   

What are you talking about? Did you even look at the image you provided?

What are you talking about?  Right above the second photo, I say:

Quote from: garygreen
Here is what it would look like if one of these patches of stars was a duplicate of the other:

The second pic is the one where I intentionally cloned the left-hand patch of dots over the right-hand patch of dots.  That's an example of what it would look like if someone had manipulated the image to duplicate one of the patches of dots.  That's your argument, right, that someone has copied one of the set of dots?

Here is what I mean:



I took the original photo and made a gif with the photo of what it would look like if these patches were copies of one another.  As you can see, they're not identical.  Again, I've tried to find a way to shrink or compress the photo in a way that will change the appearance of the background (to see if one could hide the duplication through image compression), and I've had no luck.

Stop comparing apples and oranges.

Fine, you're right, I used your second image. But there are also repeating patterns in your first image. Look at the first picture you gave me:



There are patterns that repeat:



It doesn't repeat uniformly, but you can clearly see that someone was swashing the clone brush around. There wouldn't be repeating patterns like that if it wasn't digitally manipulated. The image has been indisputably manipulated. There is no possible counter rebuttal.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 06:52:00 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11726
Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #62 on: June 16, 2012, 07:21:58 PM »
Quote from: EmperorZork
2) http://marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2010/184/fake-starfield.htm

Anyone can know at anytime where the ISS is. Anyone can spot a telescope on it and see what it looks like. I cannot explain the oddity of the picture, but even using the deforming lense of the conspiracy, I cannot pretend that the ISS isn't orbiting over our heads.

This is clear cut evidence of image manipulation. How anyone can plug their ears to this is inexcusable.

While I do not have an explanation for the regularity of the pattern, we can actually rule out photo manipulation as a cause.  Well, we can rule out duplicating effects, like a copy/paste job, or a cloning tool.  Here's how:

Here is the original photo, hosted by NASA: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-106/html/s106e5052.html

Now, I've downloaded the photo and loaded it into Photoshop.  If you don't have Photoshop, you can download GIMP, an excellent, free photo suite, and reproduce my results.  I took the photo and adjusted the exposure, setting gamma from 1, to 4.  If I understand the process correctly, gamma corrections are one way of getting enough contrast and brightness to see background noise in the photo without distorting the information in the pixels themselves.  Here is the result:  http://i.imgur.com/ChNt5.jpg

If you zoom in on the "duplicated" region, you see this:



You'll notice that the backgrounds don't match up.  The different patches of light and dark in the background do not repeat, align, or match up.  You can test this in Photoshop by copy/pasting one of the sets of stars over the other and flipping back and forth.  The pixels are different.  They weren't copied.   

Here is what it would look like if one of these patches of stars was a duplicate of the other:



It doesn't matter what tool you use, if one of these patches was a duplicate of the other, the backgrounds would have exactly the same information embedded in each pixel.  Clearly, it doesn't. 

Here, I've zoomed in on the individual pixels for the top three stars in each of the two sets.  As you can see, they're not identical.

The left set:


The right set:


Also, I think it's worth noting that these are almost certainly specks of dust, lens scratches, or hot pixels, and not stars.  The ISS is very bright in this photo, which means the exposure times would have been very short, much too short to capture the relatively faint stars.  And, everything else in the photo is blurry, but the "stars" are quite sharp as we can see from the last two images.  If you look through other photos of the ISS from that mission and overlay them, you'll find a large number of these "stars" that align perfectly over every photo.  They're probably dust specks or tiny scratches.  The rest are probably hot pixels.

I am not an expert in photography by any stretch of the imagination, and I admittedly have little understanding of how such an exact pattern would be duplicated like that.  Perhaps someone went to the trouble of trying to hide the fact that they manipulated the image and altered the background pixels.  But, anyone who did that wouldn't have left such an obvious pattern in the first place.

I simply don't understand how you think a conspiracy could possibly be this clumsy and still succeed.  It makes no sense.

This explanation is from my son, who proposed a possible response.
P.S. He thinks I'm crazy for believing FE.

When an image is digitized, most digital file formats run an algorithm on the image that "anti-aliases" it to reduce color aliases from arising between the sharp color changes in between pixels. If the image has at any point been put into a format that aliases by default (JPEG, for example), then an anti-aliasing algorithm would be responsible for those negligible pixel to pixel differences.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #63 on: June 16, 2012, 07:50:41 PM »
There are patterns that repeat:



It doesn't repeat uniformly, but you can clearly see that someone was swashing the clone brush around. There wouldn't be repeating patterns like that if it wasn't digitally manipulated. The image has been indisputably manipulated. There is no possible counter rebuttal.

There most certainly is a valid rebuttal.  Many, actually.

1.  Examine the areas you highlighted closely.  They are similar, but they are not identical.  See for yourself.  These are close-ups of the three dots that you highlighted at the bottom of the pattern, in order from left to right.







They are similar, but not identical.  This could not have been done with a clone brush.  The clone tool copies the pixel information exactly.  It does not make a bunch of random errors.  Someone would have to have gone in and altered each of the repeating shapes by just a handful of pixels, just to hide the fact that they used the clone brush from anyone who gamma corrected the photo, but failed to hide the more obvious pattern that requires no correction at all to see.  Honestly, is that what you think happened?  Why not simply withhold that picture?

2.  There is absolutely no reason at all to put a fake star field in these photos.  The people who view these photos do not expect to see stars in them.  There shouldn't be any stars in them.  The exposure times are too short.  Inserting a fake star field is both unnecessary and counter-intuitive.

3.  If you were going to insert fake star fields, you'd probably do it by hand.  At one photo per minute for six hours per day, one person could alter 10,000 photos in under a month.  There are way fewer than 10k photos from the ISS in that particular archive.  Whatever the math, you could just sit and put dots on pictures and never create a pattern like that.

4.  If you were going to automate the process, there's no reason that automation would produce such obvious patterns.  Why would the conspirators live with such an obvious design flaw? 

It doesn't make any sense at all.
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #64 on: June 16, 2012, 07:59:25 PM »
This explanation is from my son, who proposed a possible response.
P.S. He thinks I'm crazy for believing FE.

When an image is digitized, most digital file formats run an algorithm on the image that "anti-aliases" it to reduce color aliases from arising between the sharp color changes in between pixels. If the image has at any point been put into a format that aliases by default (JPEG, for example), then an anti-aliasing algorithm would be responsible for those negligible pixel to pixel differences.

A fair point.  I don't know a lot about digital imaging, and that makes intuitive sense to me.  The pixel comparisons may mean nothing.

However, it still might.  If you were going to manipulate an image, you'd probably put it into a digital format first.  I don't even know if these camera produce anything other than a digital image.  If so, the manipulation would occur after these anti-aliasing algorithms do what they do, and the evidence of the manipulation would be preserved.

Maybe.  I dunno, I don't really think any of this is evidence of anything, so I'm just speculating. 
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #65 on: June 16, 2012, 08:01:30 PM »
Look at those other shapes, like the onion in the red circle. They are nearly exactly identical pixel for pixel. How can that possibly be a coincidence?

The slight differences may be anti-alias artifacts like hoppy said. The fact is that these patterns are not a coincidence. There is undeniable image manipulation going on. There is no other explanation for why these patterns would repeat.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 08:07:58 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #66 on: June 16, 2012, 08:45:17 PM »
Look at those other shapes, like the onion in the red circle. They are nearly exactly identical pixel for pixel. How can that possibly be a coincidence?

The slight differences may be anti-alias artifacts like hoppy said. The fact is that these patterns are not a coincidence. There is undeniable image manipulation going on. There is no other explanation for why these patterns would repeat.

It is undeniable that something has caused a repeating pattern on the image.  There is no evidence at all that it is the result of intentional manipulation.  There is good evidence that it was not manipulated with a clone brush.  If it was manipulated without a clone brush, it would have to have been touched up by hand.  If it was touched up by hand, the pattern wouldn't be there, because the person doing the manipulation would simply eliminate the pattern altogether.  Compression and image adjustments don't account for it.  Anti-alias artifacts don't account for it because the image would already be digital when the manipulations are made.  Something has caused the pattern, but there is no evidence of manipulation.  The mere fact that it is a pattern is not evidence. 

It's not a coincidence that there are similar shapes in the noise.  Something has caused some sort of duplication or distortion.  There's simply no evidence that that something is intentional manipulation.

Also, even if you're correct that the photo has been intentionally manipulated, that's still not evidence that the entire scene is fake.  If you're right, there are any number of totally mundane possibilities.  Maybe they were just covering up a smudge, or a lens flare, or an error in the way the image was processed or something.  All of those things seem way more likely than a 60-year-old fake space program.
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #67 on: June 17, 2012, 01:14:33 AM »
It is undeniable that something has caused a repeating pattern on the image.  There is no evidence at all that it is the result of intentional manipulation.

What are you talking about? I've just shown direct clear and undeniable evidence that the image is being digitally manipulated.

Quote
It's not a coincidence that there are similar shapes in the noise.  Something has caused some sort of duplication or distortion.  There's simply no evidence that that something is intentional manipulation.

Where did I say it was intentional? Why would they intentionally put evidence of their scam into their photos?  ???

It was a mistake, just like all of their other mistakes.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #68 on: June 17, 2012, 02:58:15 AM »
Perhaps there are whistle blowers in the industry.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #69 on: June 17, 2012, 07:47:31 AM »
this seems like a clear cut case of roundy denial here. tom maybe a loony but in this case he appears to be right. the question we should be asking is why was the said picture changed? what were they covering up? we cant deny the space station exists, so what would cause NASA to doctor their picture? i can think of 4 reasons quite quickly;

1. the ISS is not in space, it just floats high up in the sky.
2. NASA has something in the shot that they would rather keep a secret, after all they are military.
3. the person responsible for making NASA photos look pretty gave this picture to the new guy and he buggered it up good and proper.
4. this was not touched up by NASA, it has been done by conspiracy theorists to muddy the water.

Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #70 on: June 17, 2012, 08:52:35 AM »
this seems like a clear cut case of roundy denial here. tom maybe a loony but in this case he appears to be right. the question we should be asking is why was the said picture changed? what were they covering up? we cant deny the space station exists, so what would cause NASA to doctor their picture? i can think of 4 reasons quite quickly;

1. the ISS is not in space, it just floats high up in the sky.
2. NASA has something in the shot that they would rather keep a secret, after all they are military.
3. the person responsible for making NASA photos look pretty gave this picture to the new guy and he buggered it up good and proper.
4. this was not touched up by NASA, it has been done by conspiracy theorists to muddy the water.

5. The ISS is well up in space and there's something we don't understand about the picture.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #71 on: June 17, 2012, 09:37:13 AM »
this seems like a clear cut case of roundy denial here. tom maybe a loony but in this case he appears to be right. the question we should be asking is why was the said picture changed? what were they covering up? we cant deny the space station exists, so what would cause NASA to doctor their picture? i can think of 4 reasons quite quickly;

1. the ISS is not in space, it just floats high up in the sky.
2. NASA has something in the shot that they would rather keep a secret, after all they are military.
3. the person responsible for making NASA photos look pretty gave this picture to the new guy and he buggered it up good and proper.
4. this was not touched up by NASA, it has been done by conspiracy theorists to muddy the water.


Well, number four simply isn't true.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-106/hires/s106e5052.jpg
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #72 on: June 17, 2012, 09:45:13 AM »
And after looking at the high res shot, the stars look nearly identical pixel for pixel... Like someone may have blurred the stars, but the same underlying patterns exist for each star. Next guesses, NASA apologists?
« Last Edit: June 17, 2012, 09:59:44 AM by Ski »
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #73 on: June 17, 2012, 09:48:14 AM »
It is undeniable that something has caused a repeating pattern on the image.  There is no evidence at all that it is the result of intentional manipulation.

What are you talking about? I've just shown direct clear and undeniable evidence that the image is being digitally manipulated.

You've not shown anything at all.  You've provided no evidence or arguments beyond, "These two things look the same.  Only humans can make two things that look the same."  That is an asinine argument.

So far, I'm the only one who's attempted any sort of genuine inquiry into whether or not this photo has been manipulated.  My analysis shows that it is highly unlikely.  The patches are not identical, and the differences are numerous enough that they cannot be explained through shrinking or digitizing the image.  Even if the image were compressed or re-sized after the manipulation, identical transformations will take place.   Here are some examples:

Here, I copied the left patch over the right patch, and I then reduced the image size by 50%.  The pixels are still identical after the manipulation.


Here, I did the same thing, but instead of reducing the image size, I compressed the image as a lower quality jpeg, from 6.13mb to 945kb.  Again, the pixels are not just a close match, they're identical.


The original photo does not contain identical patches.  And, it's got a pretty high resolution already, so it couldn't really have been compressed much, if at all.  Your argument simply doesn't make sense.  The evidence is clearly against this being a product of human hands.

Your only real argument is that it must be caused by human manipulation because it's a pattern.  That's not evidence.  You said it yourself: the cause remains unknown.

Where did I say it was intentional? Why would they intentionally put evidence of their scam into their photos?

It was a mistake, just like all of their other mistakes.

I don't get how such a mistake would be made.  That's not an explanation. 

There's not any reason at all to insert a fake star field in one small corner of one photo, in a place where the target audience already doesn't expect to see a star field, and then to make that forgery the laziest, sloppiest, most obvious pattern possible.

But whatever.  You found a weird thing, and now you're a dog with a bone.  Good boy.  Keep finding weird things in photos.  I bet you could go through my vacation photos and find "undeniable evidence" that I never went on vacation.  [spoiler]check out the shadows coming from the gateway arch man they totally aren't parallel with those buildings no way he went to st. louis that's bogus stop lying about st. louis[/spoiler]
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #74 on: June 17, 2012, 09:57:01 AM »
So far, I'm the only one who's attempted any sort of genuine inquiry into whether or not this photo has been manipulated.  My analysis shows that it is highly unlikely.

Could you do the same with the actual NASA photo. Wouldn't that be easier than arguing over the hypothetical?

"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #75 on: June 17, 2012, 10:02:58 AM »
And after looking at the high res shot, the stars look identical pixel for pixel... So the differences were compression artifacts. Next guesses, NASA apologists?

The "stars" do not look identical.  I posted close-ups of the specks and they are not identical.  Similar, but not identical.  The only thing identical about them is the single white pixel at the center.

I posted pics of what the patches look like when they're identical and compressed, and they're still identical after the compression.  To compare, this is what the unedited photo looks like when it is compressed.



This does not look the same as the ones I edited. 

You people claim to be Zetetic, and that we should conduct investigations and see the results for ourselves, and that we can trust those results because we can demonstrate them.  I have done exactly that.  Unlike Tom, I've made no assumptions about the cause of the pattern, and the results of my investigation can be reproduced and demonstrated, and the original image does not conform to my demonstration of what the photo look like when it's been edited. 

Ironically, none of the people who actually believe in a fake NASA are willing to even attempt any inquiry at all, let alone an honest one.  I guess I've learned some stuff about imaging that I didn't know before, and that's cool.  There's a really cool universe out there.  Stop being so methodologically lazy and join the party.
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #76 on: June 17, 2012, 10:14:14 AM »
And after looking at the high res shot, the stars look identical pixel for pixel... So the differences were compression artifacts. Next guesses, NASA apologists?

The "stars" do not look identical.  I posted close-ups of the specks and they are not identical.  Similar, but not identical.  The only thing identical about them is the single white pixel at the center.
I actually edited my post before you posted this to reflect that, yet the same pattern about the star is repeated. We see this in none of the other stars.  Additionally, two look fact to be the same:    [2052,1900] and [1892,1900]  The one at [1732,1900] looks to be the same pattern but slightly different by pixel.  Don't you find it odd that they are EXACTLY at [160,0] intervals on the photo? I haven't looked at the upper ones in the same detail, but I suspect we see the same thing.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #77 on: June 17, 2012, 11:05:33 AM »
And after looking at the high res shot, the stars look identical pixel for pixel... So the differences were compression artifacts. Next guesses, NASA apologists?
The "stars" do not look identical.  I posted close-ups of the specks and they are not identical.  Similar, but not identical.  The only thing identical about them is the single white pixel at the center.
I actually edited my post before you posted this to reflect that, yet the same pattern about the star is repeated. We see this in none of the other stars.  Additionally, two look fact to be the same:    [2052,1900] and [1892,1900]  The one at [1732,1900] looks to be the same pattern but slightly different by pixel.  Don't you find it odd that they are EXACTLY at [160,0] intervals on the photo? I haven't looked at the upper ones in the same detail, but I suspect we see the same thing.

Ah, so you did.  My bad.

Although you are correct that the spacing is exact and repeating, the pixels that make up the specks only appear to be the same.  Photoshop has a tool that lets you see the exact information embedded in each pixel, and if you compare the different specs, even the highly similar ones, the shades and colors are not precisely the same.  They're very close, which is why they look the same when enlarged on a monitor, but the RGB values are different for all of them. 

For instance, of the bottom row of specks, the left speck has has the values


The center speck has the values


The right speck has the values


This is true for any of the other regular features, and it's more evidence that the pattern was not caused by a clone brush or copy/paste.  It also would not be caused by compression or re-sizing. 

The pattern is intriguing, and I don't pretend to know the cause.  But, the fact remains, there is no evidence of forgery, and there's good evidence against forgery.  However, even if it were manipulated, that's still not evidence that the entire scene is fake, or that NASA is fake.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2012, 12:26:30 PM by garygreen »
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11726
Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #78 on: June 17, 2012, 11:35:18 AM »
It does nothing for their credibility having repeating star patterns in pictures. This means that they were added to the picture, it would have been better for them to not put them in there. why do they feel the need to add stars to the picture?
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11726
Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #79 on: June 17, 2012, 12:36:48 PM »
In report 143 pictures from Mars show a skull laying in dirt and half of a plate. You RE 'ers are going to have to start beliving in life on Mars or that NASA is lying. I'm on my phone now so I can't post the pics. This is totally crazy stuff.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #80 on: June 17, 2012, 02:17:32 PM »
Although you are correct that the spacing is exact and repeating, the pixels that make up the specks only appear to be the same.
It's remarkable that so many objects would have the same background pattern, isn't it? I mean, really, really remarkable. None of the other stars in the photo have the same sort of halo, do they? None of the other stars have specks that appear to be the same, do they?

Quote
Photoshop has a tool that lets you see the exact information embedded in each pixel, and if you compare the different specs, even the highly similar ones, the shades and colors are not precisely the same.  They're very close, which is why they look the same when enlarged on a monitor, but the RGB values are different for all of them. 
As if they were blurred for example? I don't have photoshop; they look exactly the same to Gimp. I'm willing to accept your word for it, but I don't believe in that sort of coincidental alignment of stars and the background pixel pattern. I'm sure I could take seven pictures of the same tree and not one of the pixel patterns would match. Or a single picture with several street lights trying to match that sort of halo effect pixel by pixel-- I don't think it could be done.


Quote
This is true for any of the other regular features, and it's more evidence that the pattern was not caused by a clone brush or copy/paste. The pattern is intriguing, and I don't pretend to know the cause. 
The only cause that seems remotely possible for repeating evenly distributed nearly identical star patterns is that they were manufactured. If there was another compelling reason, I'd like to hear it.

Quote
But, the fact remains, there is no evidence of forgery, and there's good evidence against forgery.  However, even if it were manipulated, that's still not evidence that the entire scene is fake, or that NASA is fake.
Because you're dismissing the evidence without an alternative explanation. It is evidence of those things. It may not be conclusive proof, but it is certainly evidence. A repeat history of photo manipulation begins to be compelling.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #81 on: June 17, 2012, 05:59:23 PM »
Because you're dismissing the evidence without an alternative explanation. It is evidence of those things. It may not be conclusive proof, but it is certainly evidence. A repeat history of photo manipulation begins to be compelling.

To be honest, none of the photographic evidence is compelling to me at all.  You just found some weird things in some photos.  Come back to me when you find a confession from an astronaut, or an audit that reveals fraud, or an incriminating email or something. 
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #82 on: June 17, 2012, 06:29:15 PM »
Like this? ???
The investigation comes at the urging of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chair of the Senate's Committee on Governmental Affairs. Collins was concerned with GAO reports stating the agency "failed to reconcile fund balances with the Treasury Department and report reliable financial information involving billions of dollars." She was also concerned that NASA had "substantial problems" implementing a new financial management system that will cost taxpayers at least $1 billion.

"Given these serious problems, I am concerned about whether NASA has an effective system of internal controls in place to prevent fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer resources,"
Collins said in a June 28 letter to GAO Comptroller General David Walker.


I'm beyond stunned that you think such a recurring pattern of perfectly evenly distributed (to the pixel count!) stars which just happen to have the same appearance were coincidentally right behind the space station and were caught on film, and that this explanation is further more compelling than that the stars were added to the photo.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #83 on: June 17, 2012, 08:31:23 PM »
I'm beyond stunned that you think such a recurring pattern of perfectly evenly distributed (to the pixel count!) stars which just happen to have the same appearance were coincidentally right behind the space station and were caught on film, and that this explanation is further more compelling than that the stars were added to the photo.

As I've said before, they are not stars.  Stars are relatively dim, and they take typically take long exposures to appear in photographs.  The ISS is bright in this image, and the exposure time definitely wasn't that long.  They're also not at all fuzzy like the rest of the objects in the photo.  They're probably hot or stuck pixels.  Maybe they're lens scratches or something.  I dunno.

If it was caused by human manipulation, that still proves nothing.  It makes just as much sense that the photo has been touched-up to cover a smudge, or a lens flare, or some other such thing.  Well, it makes more sense than a conspirator smart enough to digitally manipulate the photo, but not smart enough to see that he or she has made such a blatantly obvious pattern. 

There is no reason at all to insert a fake star field into those photos.  There shouldn't be stars in them.  The exposure times are too short.

Like this? ???
The investigation comes at the urging of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chair of the Senate's Committee on Governmental Affairs. Collins was concerned with GAO reports stating the agency "failed to reconcile fund balances with the Treasury Department and report reliable financial information involving billions of dollars." She was also concerned that NASA had "substantial problems" implementing a new financial management system that will cost taxpayers at least $1 billion.

"Given these serious problems, I am concerned about whether NASA has an effective system of internal controls in place to prevent fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer resources,"
Collins said in a June 28 letter to GAO Comptroller General David Walker.

The report did not conclude that the space program is fake.  It concluded:

Quote
"While some areas needing reform relate to automated systems, automation alone is not sufficient to transform NASA's financial management culture," the report stated. "NASA needs to fully integrate its financial management operations with its program management decision-making process."

All of that is very different from, "Someone has been stealing money from the budget of this fake space program."  They're audited virtually every year, and often by private accounting firms like PWC and Arthur Andersen.  None of them allege fraud.  None of them allege a fake space program.

The whole point of a conspiracy is to be as discrete as possible.  Keeping terrible books and getting audited all the time is the opposite of that.

What the conspiracy believers fail to recognize is how many people there are who could benefit by exposing a fake space program, and how many motivations there are for doing so that money can't buy.  Any journalist or politician, for starters.  And, it's impossible for me to believe that not one person in 60 years has ever felt guilty enough to come forward.  Or to leave an anonymous tip (you know, like the one described in your article) to the GAO, or a journalist.  Or leave some irrefutable proof in a safe place until after he or she died or something.  Or any of the other ways that much smaller and more discrete conspiracies get caught.  In 60 years, nothing.  That boggles the mind much more than any weird looking thing in some photograph.
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11726
Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #84 on: June 18, 2012, 04:21:01 AM »
Enron and Madoff had auditors and many audits, they got caught after many years. They didn't get caught by auditors, they got caught when they ran out of money. NASA has unlimited funds.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #85 on: June 18, 2012, 04:47:04 AM »
NASA has unlimited funds.

Are you sure?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #86 on: June 18, 2012, 04:57:55 AM »
NASA has unlimited funds.
NASA is quite poorly funded these days.

?

Thork

Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #87 on: June 18, 2012, 06:02:27 AM »
NASA has unlimited funds.
NASA is quite poorly funded these days.
The shortfall is made up from the black budget. Don't worry. NASA isn't short of a few quid.

Re: NASA anomalies
« Reply #88 on: June 18, 2012, 11:36:48 AM »
NASA has unlimited funds.
NASA is quite poorly funded these days.
The shortfall is made up from the black budget. Don't worry. NASA isn't short of a few quid.

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_nasa/

FY2012 Request:  $18.7 billion
FY2011 Request:  $19.0 billion
FY2010 Enacted:  $18.7 billion

Black budget: you'll have to look into it.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.