Miscellaneous NASA comedies

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
Post Reply
lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread post by lux » Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:52 pm

NASA reports that the Cygnus cargo ship launch to the ISS which was supposed to be on January 8th was delayed due to bad space weather causing "high solar radiation from an intense solar flare."
... officials confirmed that they will attempt to launch the Cygnus on Thursday (Jan. 9), with the liftoff window opening at 1:07 p.m. EST (1807 GMT)
They're delaying the launch until January 9th? But, spaceweather.com reports a "90% chance of geomagnetic storms on Jan. 9th when a CME is expected to hit Earth's magnetic field." Gosh -- we better call NASA and warn them that a January 9th launch is a bad idea. :o

But, for some reason I can find no report of any January 8th space weather effect on the ISS itself nor on any of the myriad high tech satellites already in orbit around our planet. I guess bad space weather only affects rocket launches and leaves orbiting satellites alone. Whew!

Oh, and here is the photo of the Cygnus rocket ship "on launch Pad-0A at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility" from the above article as it patiently waits for clear space weather:

Image

I was wondering how the photographer managed to get so much detail of the rocket and nearby structures when the only illumination is from the sun behind it. Usually all you can get from this type of lighting is a black silhouette against the bright background.

And, isn't that a funny place to put a water tower? Right next to a rocket launch pad? Don't rockets sometimes lift off in unpredictable directions when something goes wrong?

Oh, I get it ... it's a magical launch pad. Never mind.
Image
http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?i ... a676.90985

anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 825
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:13 pm

My guess is that the water tower was placed there as a giant phallic "fuck you" to those who might run it through the ELA, namely us.

Nice work, lux.

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread post by brianv » Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:46 pm

Image

That water-tower? is remarkably like an old russian transisitor. Image
nick-named "UFO's". Is the tower meant as a subliminal?

What is the need for water-tower on a launch pad? To fill the rocket? To put out a liquid fuel fire?

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread post by lux » Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:29 pm

In case you were wondering, it is illegal in the USA to launch orbiting billboards into space that would be visible with the unaided eye from the Earth's surface.

The law is contained in US Code Title 49, Subtitle IX, Chapter 701, Sections 70109a ...
No holder of a license under this chapter may launch a payload containing any material to be used for purposes of obtrusive space advertising.
... and 70102 ...
“obtrusive space advertising” means advertising in outer space that is capable of being recognized by a human being on the surface of the Earth without the aid of a telescope or other technological device.
However, it is perfectly OK to employ nonobtrusive advertising ...
Nothing in this section shall apply to nonobtrusive commercial space advertising, including advertising on—
(1) commercial space transportation vehicles;
(2) space infrastructure payloads;
(3) space launch facilities; and
(4) launch support facilities.
... which, I suppose, includes astronauts depicted drinking Coke:

Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_advertising

So, you needn't ask why you will never see any orbiting space billboards (which should be quite easy to do according to NASA's claimed technological prowess) because such things are clearly illegal. :lol:

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread post by lux » Wed Feb 19, 2014 12:50 am

What can I say? :lol:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzHaWc5n70A

dblitz
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 am

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread post by dblitz » Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:10 am

Image

dblitz
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 am

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread post by dblitz » Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:25 am

What can I say? :lol:
It almost looks real until those last few shots/angles and then I just laughed out loud and nearly fell off my chair at the absurdity of it all.

Why the 'jet' sound at around 2:30, recorded from a distance in complete contrast to the quiet, hissing engine noise from the camera mounted right next to it?

Why?

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread post by lux » Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:34 pm

Another example of what $18 billion per year buys us from NASA ...

This is NASA's radar recording of a near Earth flyby of a "peanut shaped asteroid"


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEA0Nptexx4

I've seen better graphics on a Commodore 64 :rolleyes:

arc300
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:13 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread post by arc300 » Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:01 pm

lux wrote:Another example of what $18 billion per year buys us from NASA ...

This is NASA's radar recording of a near Earth flyby of a "peanut shaped asteroid"


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEA0Nptexx4

I've seen better graphics on a Commodore 64 :rolleyes:
I'm not sure whether the video is supposed to depict the alleged asteroid tumbling through alleged space, or whether the alleged earth-based deep space antenna is tumbling around the asteroid.

Sukiari
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread post by Sukiari » Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:57 am

lux wrote:Neil deGrasse Tyson tells us why funding NASA programs will fix all our problems ...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlGemHL5vLY

Neil deGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist and "science communicator."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
He says "Audacious visions have the power to alter mindscapes."

Jeez, can it get any more obvious?

Sukiari
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread post by Sukiari » Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:02 am

hoi.polloi wrote:I am not sure if you noticed, but pixels generally tend to be rectangular.
Not just pixels, but JPG compression is based upon breaking the image down into rectangles as well, which makes me doubt the utility of a lot of the error level analysis that is introduced as evidence here.

ELA of original TIFF images should be performed if we are to believe that it shows evidence of fakery. And fakery there is, in spades! But I don't think that it shows what folks think it shows when it is performed on JPG images.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread post by lux » Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:22 am

Sukiari wrote:
ELA of original TIFF images should be performed if we are to believe that it shows evidence of fakery.
ELA only works with jpg or png files

Many of the fake images are composites. How would one obtain "original TIFF images" of a composite which was manipulated after the original photography?

For that matter, how are you going to get original TIFF images in any case? We work with the photos that appear on the web for the most part and they are usually jpgs or pngs. It's probably true that they are usually not originals but they generally represent what is being displayed for public consumption on the web at least.

We have to work with what is available to us.

Sukiari
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread post by Sukiari » Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:46 am

lux wrote: ELA only works with jpg or png files
Of course, because you'll never see the blocky artifacts that occur along rectangular lines and across portions of high contrast and color differences in TIFF files, as they do not exist *EDIT: UNLESS THEY ARE FAKED.*
lux wrote: Many of the fake images are composites. How would one obtain "original TIFF images" of a composite which was manipulated after the original photography?

For that matter, how are you going to get original TIFF images in any case? We work with the photos that appear on the web for the most part and they are usually jpgs or pngs. It's probably true that they are usually not originals but they generally represent what is being displayed for public consumption on the web at least.

We have to work with what is available to us.
NASA provides many of its images in TIFF format, for one. I contend that it is impossible to use error level analysis on images that have been subjected to compression, unless your goal is to determine if compression has been applied. *EVERY* image that has high contrast or abrupt color changes will show some pretty sparkles when subjected to ELA if it has been compressed (*EDIT: images compressed using the lowest compression will show less blockiness and pretty colors on an ELA because the rectangles are smaller and they each contain more bits of data*). Much better to use the TIFFS because then you will know that any errors are not an artifact of the compression process.

Often times I see you and a few others post these ELA 'analyses' with no further comment, as if they prove anything. ANY JPG which is compressed to a moderately high level (such as you will find for distribution on the web) will show pretty colorful sparkles unless it is exceptionally low contrast, or it has muted color transitions.

I have seen ELAs posted here that purport to 'prove' fakery (and massive fakery is out there) without further comment, as if some pretty purple and pink and blue sparkles prove anything.

Fake imagery is very often unrealistic to the eye.

My challenge is to ascertain the algorithims used in ELA, use the Photoshop custom filter to build your own ELA, and take some good candidates for fakery from NASA's site in the original high-rez and high-bit depth, and ELA it. I have to remain skeptical of magical filters especially when they "won't work with the TIFFS."

I have worked as a specialist in digital imagery and I do not trust ELA in the least bit.
Last edited by Sukiari on Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:57 am, edited 2 times in total.

Sukiari
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread post by Sukiari » Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:53 am

lux wrote: Many of the fake images are composites. How would one obtain "original TIFF images" of a composite which was manipulated after the original photography?
Let me address this point in particular. If there are fake-looking TIFFs that are available on the NASA site (for example) and ELA shows any blockiness or evidence of compositing, I will be more convinced. I just doubt that evidence of blockiness is evidence of photo-composition - especially because the blockiness is precisely how JPGs and PNGs (and other compressed image formats) work - the algorithm groups together similar looking portions of the image in large (and larger) rectangular portions in order to save on the amount of bits that must be transmitted to convey something that looks similar to the original image.

Please read about image compression if you wish to understand why an ELA can show 'evidence' of 'fakery' in the form of pretty colors on many compressed images, and experiment with how as you increase the compression level of an image, you can increase the pretty colors on the ELA as well.

I agree that photo compositions are common in the media. I do not think that ELA is enough to prove this with most images, though.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread post by lux » Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:54 am

Sukiari wrote:
Often times I see you and a few others post these ELA 'analyses' with no further comment, as if they prove anything. ANY JPG which is compressed to a moderately high level (such as you will find for distribution on the web) will show pretty colorful sparkles unless it is exceptionally low contrast, or it has muted color transitions.

I have seen ELAs posted here that purport to 'prove' fakery (and massive fakery is out there) without further comment, as if some pretty purple and pink and blue sparkles prove anything.
I agree with this observation.
My challenge is to ascertain the algorithims used in ELA, use the Photoshop custom filter to build your own ELA, and take some good candidates for fakery from NASA's site in the original high-rez and high-bit depth, and ELA it.
I wish you would. That would be huge. :)

Post Reply