Can NASA pictures be considered real or they are just deceiving art?

in #nasa7 years ago (edited)

I just wanted to reply to this post - https://steemit.com/science/@mobbs/flat-earth-the-end-debate created by @mobbs but then my reply started to be quite long to I decided to create entirely new post. Here it is!

Major question

Can NASA pictures be taken seriously as facts or are they just a (deceiving) art at best? Let's do some basic analysis to find out.

All these pictures were taken TODAY and ONLY from NASA official pages - links provided and I just did basic analysis so you can see for yourself as it requires not much time or special skills. There is lot deception on the internet so it's very valuable when you can test things for yourself. All what I did you can do as well. NASA is presenting images over time (almost no videos - who could wonder - just few poor CGI animations) of space - Moon, Earth, etc. Presenting these images as the reality without strong statements that they are composites, CGI or strongly edited and manipulated is very harmful as you can see because it partially blocks you from entering alternative research and creates false impression of reality around us. Sometimes, after pressure and independent research they admit that images are not genuine reality but composites created by various methods. So is it reality or fiction? Let's put some of these most interesting images to test.

Prerequisites

  • image editor (Photoshop, Gimp, ...)
  • internet access to NASA page

Steps

  • download image
  • open it in image editor and play with some color features like Adjusting Color Curves to find out hidden flaws and image manipulation and traces of composing.

Here you have some proof directly from NASA page, let's play and try find some differences, LOL.

  • newer the images have more CGI look
  • Moon terrain seems quite different and more artificial on newer pictures
  • Earth seems much less realistic on 2015 image
  • the oldest (1966) image looks most reliable from all of those due to lack of details and lack of CGI-feel

1966 First View of Earth From Moon - NASA link

1968 Apollo 8 Christmass at the Moon - NASA link

2015 New High-Resolution Image - NASA link

Analysis

And now some simple analysis based on using color curves adjustment to find normally invisible traces of image manipulation. You see, in space there is radiation visible on the photo material or CCD sensor, it's not just a black area as you can see on images images below. You can also see pasted rectangular areas which means that images are composites of multiple images (this time small "Earth" is pasted). And also you can see black areas are that is simply removal of the original content which was there before. It is just a cutout elements put here and there. But check it for yourself.

2009 - From the Moon to the Earth

NASA link


Below you can see how fabricated the image is

Apollo 17 Astronaut Moon Flag

NASA link

Below you can see magnified rectangular place where the image of "the Earth" is pasted. Note again, there is no radiation captured.

NASA images without traces of previously described manipulation

(this doesn't mean they are not also fabricated but it's just not detectable by used analysis)

And now how it looks when there are not traces of such a kind of image manipulation (the images below are also from NASA). So what, is there radiation captured on CCD or photo material or not in space? NASA, you should decide. I will answer it for yourself. Of course there is, therefore these images look more reliable and might be even real - or not. My guess is not because once they fabricate so much other stuff, there is high probability they fabricated also the rest.

Conclusion

The observed NASA pictures (especially those showing Moon, Earth and an astronaut(s) on one picture) are unreliable and can be easily taken as a fantasy art at best due to strong image manipulation based even on this simple analysis. If some picture are proven to be fabricated, none can be actually trusted by default. I regret all the time when I was younger and took these pictures seriously - I should have rather watch other Disney cartoons - they were at least funny (sometimes) even though they were partially created by the same kind of free-masonic graphic designers. Important bottom line also is that NASA, in 50 years, hasn't provided any reliable image (and of course forget about any non-trivial video which is much more difficult to fabricate) of whole Earth from space and so we really don't know how Earth looks like from distance allowing a complete Earth observation. Sad fact is we don't have not even one real proof of the Earth shape and rotation is as they indoctrinated us since our very youth. Whatever created and published these days must be very critically reviewed these days due to to technology advancements in computer graphics - simply said, it is already possible to create computer graphics that human eye cannot discern from a real picture but there can be some other flaws (like break of physics, etc.). Only very long and complex video recording would be still hard to fake.

This conclusion was based on simple analysis everyone can replicate (just by using the official NASA images and simple graphics editor). I encourage you to make your own conclusion and don't be afraid to deny official theories when evidence supporting them is obviously fabricated. Great job NASA considering your total budget consumed over 500 billion of USD from tax payers money so far.

If you want my strong opinion based on hundreds of supporting facts (not listed in this post), there it is: I claim that NASA as organization partially lying and deceiving and covering their real agenda, partially showing the truth. That's worst possible combination as it's most deceiving. There are people inside NASA who know they are producing fraud and there are people who don't (due to split of assignments) and some people (lower-rank) who might even create some useful inventions and provide useful services. Anyway the group of high-ranked liars are enemy of the people and they are assigned by evil people under evil forces using tax payers money. Their agenda is nothing smaller than to capture your mindset and give you false perspective for your life (in certain sense to steal your soul). But I declare their deception is almost over and it will go into devastation thanks to God in Jesus name.

All right, that's all for today. Have fun and don't get frustrated because that would be bad response. Feel free to expose all their trash but don't be hostile to them, they are already in pretty bad situation due to their pathetic agenda.

Sort:  

Very good post and interesting topic to cover. Imo there was not ever a moonlanding and there wont be one for the next decate or two as @mobbs already mentioned. If you can explain to me how any space ship or rocket wants to bypass the Van Allen belt. So far nobody has come close to atempting that since the radiation levels are just insane. #toasted

Yes, I don't think NASA had/has anything that crossed Van Allen Belts (assuming Van Allen radiation belts are real). NASA claims that they (Apollo) skirted the most dangerous part of the belt. This explanation sounds pretty poor and you're probably right. They didn't do it and everything about Apollo flights beyond some safe height is just a fabrication. I don't think NASA even has solution today. US also tried to break this belt during Operation Fishbowl and Operation Dominic.

They send machines through the belts, but humans is doubtful. Not 1 human has gone outside of low earth orbit in about 50 years now. NASA can't really be trusted.

Anyway, i hope you don't believe in the flat earth stuff, because that's been debunked 2 years ago.

I'm pretty doubtful about all astrophysics science except of what can be observed (and mainly verified) from Earth. Even then you must be careful about explanation of the experiment/observation and where this theory leads you. Anyway for people like me whatever you cannot be proven by experiment on Earth is just an issue of faith. I'm Christian and I believe in Jesus because He was proven in my life undoubtedly (on the other hand I must say I sought Him a lot and put a lot of effort into it even though for many years I had no evidence whatsoever). For purely scientific theories I keep my mind open so I don't believe flat earth much more than I believe round/rotating Earth just because I cannot verify enough evidence by myself. Actually more I research both models, more problematic issues I find with rotating sphere model. But flat-earth research is also contaminated by deceiving people and fake organizations filled with free-masons and other doubtful people (like Flat Earth Society), who spread non-sense arguments to undermine the research, and so you need to find genuine people in the area. I must say Eric Dubay makes lot of sense to me and many of his arguments are pretty strong. Feel free to check his statements for yourself

Eric Dubay makes zero sense, all his claims have been debunked 2 years ago. Please do not fall for it, it's a lie to take your money.

I've never seen his arguments really debunked, can you point me to some good source?

Just look around Youtube for "flat earth debunked" or something, when looking at that information with an open mind you'll get in the right direction. You should probably start by looking at the angular size of the sun when filmed with solar filter and the fact that you can't see Polaris from the far below the equator.

Well, yeah, I've seen some of those and also those debunks debunked back :). It's really hard to go though all the claims. There are lots of half-truth and diversions. Something is wrong here - in both models. NASA could help but I'm pretty sure they are not telling us the all the facts they know.

UPDATE: I verified that part of Eric's argumentation is definitely not correct. So yeah, it's needed to test everything from all sides.

ummm... all i see is jpg compression artifacts being revealed... what is that supposed to tell us?!

ಠ_ಠ

There are really some strange things regarding the images and if you are interested, you should take your time to investigate it, before you defend something you might not understand. You've paid to bring your comment to the top, that's a bit strange, but ok :) There is a reason why so many people start talking about this stuff. Take a look at the size of the continents here:


jpg artifacts

do you see those artifacts?

they are in every friggin JPG, whether it comes straight from your camera or not, it's a result of image compression, it really irks me when something like this is claimed as "evidence" for tampering...

^that's why I paid to make my comment visible!

I see the artifacts... ^^ But do you see what I wanted to show? There are some inconsistencies with the images and that's why people start talking about these theories ;) Of course we can't prove anything without flying in a spaceship :) But which is the real image of earth? Both has been published by them as real photos of the earth...

Well... before we start arguing about a new issue, I wanted to get my initial point across... the artifacts in the OP are meaningless

now about that blue-marble image you brought up... No, I don't think they are real, NASA themselves say they aren't, so why should I think they are then?!?

The blue marble pictures are being composed of low orbit satellite imagery stitched together... but even if they were real, the different size of continents could still simply be explained by a different distance and focal length... (you could try that with a zoom lens and a globe at home!)

but I am not interested in taking this post further off topic, neither do i want to discuss the broader claims behind this... all I really wanted to point out is that basing claims about fakery on perfectly normal JPG artifacts is ridiculous.

edit: had to google that - the 1st "whole earth" shot that nasa claims to be a single frame shot (albeit still edited) is from 2015 when the DSCOVR satellite started operation (or was claimed to have started).

You actually proved my point. These are just composites and impression that they are taken from distance where all earth can be observed would be just false. And of course one ball observed from same distance by the same optical system cannot be completely different so they can be marked as fabricated just by this simple observation which is obvious to everyone.

that why I mentioned DSCOVR...

if we want to debate whether an image is composed from multiple sources or not we'll have to dissect images from that satellite. Those are the only ones where NASA themselves claim they come from a single POV.

jpg compression will not remove ray/radiation traces (although it can lower their resolution), these are just composites and purged images. You basically do it when you want to remove something what was there like wires and supportive scene or when you composite of generated 3D terrain and putting something other pictures there. Then you usually don't have generated atmosphere ray on the picture because it would cost you extra effort and it's not worth it.

I am pretty sure radiation traces would be removed in editing.

You can also see pasted rectangular areas which means that images are composites of multiple images (this time small "Earth" is pasted).

^This is just simply not true! Those "rectangular areas" don't mean anything, they are created when "blocks of pixels" are being mathematically reduced to compress the file size.

Well, I know what you mean. When you reduce quality really drastically you can achieve that effect. But frankly when you want to present something to others, is your goal to reduce quality so drastically or you want to provide as high detail level as possible? Unless you are hiding something you want always to produce highest possible detail level. Otherwise you could also produce reduced images like this one (in image below radiation was completely removed by data reduction, but also other details were).

Long before CNN was NASA... VERY FAKE NEWS. @ironshield

Loading...

All composites. $500 Billion from tax payers. What a scam.

Yeah, Pablo Picasso looks like a 2nd rate dauber compare to these NASA artists.

And then there is this:

I absolutely agree with you, the bamboozle is painful to admit, that's why so many people will never be able to admit it. I'm thankful for people like you, and other free thinkers who's egos aren't too big to admit the wool was pulled over their eyes. <3 Thanks for bringing truth to Steemit.

Yes, it's sad that few can completely take over minds of billions of people with some clever moves. People are weak and not to be trusted, easily tricked and then even unintentionally deceiving others. Trust God and His Word because He speaks only truth and can not be deceived as He knows it all.

Hello. Very good post and interesting of the NASA. Follow me

Thank you, I appreciate your interest.

Lol. I don't believe in anything anymore. This whole moon landing is a joke as far as I'm concerned. We would be living on the moon by now if we landed on it back in 1969. Maybe I need a rubber room, because it does sound crazy to some. Steem On!

Yeah, I know your feelings! These tricks are almost over. We are heading to one last master trick, much more deceitful and evil than this one and then it will be over. Stay with Jesus and you will not be tricked.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.30
TRX 0.11
JST 0.033
BTC 64106.00
ETH 3129.71
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.16