NASA Caught Faking Images Of Pluto To Fool Public, July 2015 (Video)
Date of discovery: July 2015
Location of discovery: Pluto
Source photo: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA19708
I have tried this technique myself many times in the past with moon photos, and other planets and celestial bodies. I have even found the moon with atmosphere like blue edges around it. I have seen this a lot in photos and do you know what really bothers me? The pitch blackness of space. The more dark it is, the easier to see the stars in the sky, so…in the darkness of space, why can’t we see any stars around Pluto? Or did NASA fake it all? SCW
Crrow77 of Youtube states:
Make no mistake – I am saying that there is no spacecraft in space at Pluto. The only thing we know of Pluto is that it is a very, very faint light in the sky. That is it, nothing more. Many NASA’s images have been shown to be constructs in this same way, to include the Apollo moon landing images. There is no way to sugar coat the fact that the Pluto mission is an occult ritual construct complete with Masonic coding. Not to mention that this is all about Pluto or the god of the underworld. Do not give power to this lie. Here is the blog mentioned in this clip decoding parts of the Pluto Masonic ritual construct - http://secretsun.blogspot.com/
Check out more contributions by Jeffery Pritchett ranging from UFO to Bigfoot to Paranormal.
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).
| Online: | |
| Visits: | 1,602,460,364 |
| Stories: | 8,147,154 |
Whistler Blowers, Insiders
Cool story bro I’m not saying NASA doesn’t cook their images but the big pixellated areas you’re looking at is likely jpeg compression artifacts.
Guys & Girls here’s the thing…
NASA lies so much, no one knows quite knows what to believe…..
Did they land on the moon, i think not… If they did why not point their very powerfull telescopes
at the moon and zoom in close to spot the Apollo left overs on the moon for public display ?
We now have hand held camera’s that can zoom in on the moon in great detail in daylight
The new NIKON 6000 etc,etc…
NASA should reconfirm its credabilty 1st don’t you guys think….?
What im having a laugh at is NASA’s billions being spent on a rocket/UFO capsule to take man to Mars at least six months away when the moon is only 3 days away by rocket….
Do any of you guys know about the true condition of the astronauts that spend six months on ISS ?
They are in a frightfull condition, zero G plays havok with their entire body system not just their muscles…
When they get back down here to gravity, they are nearly blind, deaf and stupid…
It takes months to restore the human body to Earth gravity from blood pressure to eye sight re adjustment.
Even hearing has to adjust to the forces of gravity on them…
A Trip To Mars And BacK Would Be A Death Sentance As So Would Be Staying On The Moon For Long Periods Of Time…
SPACE IS THE FINAL FRONTIER ~ VERY FINAL
Nobody is coming back from Mars… It’s a one-way trip.
I’m really glad I found this!
I woke up this morning, and thought to myself “You know what the internet needs? More people that have no knowledge or education on a subject, making videos that subject.”.
Then I found this awesome example of someone who is not an astrophysicists, or an expert in digital images, talking about both.
Thank you.
Hmmmm….mean, mocking, sarcasm….gotta tell you…not very noble traits there!
Posting videos of gibbering nonsense about something you don’t understand at all, all while acting like you do, isn’t a very noble trait either.
Here’s a fun fact, applying image filters from software like Photoshop or its clones, does not prove anything. In fact, the image filter actually distorts the image, creating artifacts that aren’t there. We don’t live in Blade Runner. You cannot “enhance” a garbage image. You can make it more visually pleasing, or see things hidden in darkness by adjusting brightness or contrast.
Image filters built into ART software, are for creating art. They do not create true negatives, ie, film quality negatives. They are for changing the appearance of an image, not finding magical things that aren’t there.
Did you observe that the identical method didn’t discover any ring of pixels around the Moon, or create any?
And you’re making Crrow’s case ” the image filter actually distorts the image, creating artifacts that aren’t there”
That’s the point. NASA’s image edit created artifacts.
If you believe we have the technology to fake this stuff, why not believe we have the technology to look out into space and send probes out there?
Because faking it is a lot cheaper and easier. They’ve been getting away with it for years and most bumble brains still believe everything they pull out of their asses. Have you seen the latest NASA photo of earth just released this week? First photo since 1970, oddly. On it, the bottom left cloud mass spells out SEX. They sit in their little cubicle farms making big bucks to laugh at us all day long.
Here’s a link from an MSM source so you can’t claim it was Photoshopped.
http://time.com/3964653/nasa-earth-photo/
Dude that’s hilarious… Its just like the letters I find in movie posters spelling out SEX. The last one I found was in the Jupiter Ascending movie poster.. Find the poster that has the storm eye with and eyebrow above it, (best way to describe) That is the S, and then faintly in the white are are a lower case e and x. Not all of the posters made for that movie have the Letters in them. You will see when you start looking at the posters. Another one is the Movie Pompeii. Look at it’s movie poster and right in the middle of the Volcano spelled out in LAVA in SEX and right above it it the word toy.. Go see..
Thanks for the link! What are the chances in nature would spell sex? Like one in a cajillion, or maybe it’s a massive man made chemtrail?
because there is no space….an example of a great photo,only the second ever released of any planet is the new PHOTOGRAPH of earth from NASA,an update from the 1972 effort,it’s oozing sex….check it out it’s woeful…NASA is fake,Apollo,ISS,the shuttle….all of it fake.
As for the technology we’re expected to beLIEve that NASA sent out millions of dollars worth of probes with 1 and 4 megapixel cameras on them even ten years ago is laughable
Good eye bro. Also I’ve been wondering how it is that this planetoid seems to be just as well illuminated as Earth despite the “fact” that it’s over 4 billion miles away ? Wouldn’t you think it would be pretty dark that far out ?
Yeah, the light out there is comparable to the light of a quarter moon here on earth. So NASA used a very sensitive camera, partly in the infrared range.
Where are the stars which would be very bright in space absent any atmosphere and the low light this far from the sun. Good call by this writer.
I remember the picture of Planet earth faked from the moon and it was way to small.
Remember the earth is several times larger than the moon and would like the except five times as big from the surface of the moon. Can’t argue that point.
“The more dark it is, the easier to see the stars in the sky, so…in the darkness of space, why can’t we see any stars around Pluto?”
It’s because the object being photographed, whether it’s the moon, Earth, or other planets, is many thousands of times brighter than the stars around it, thus washing out most if not all of the star light. Even high end photography equipment is a lot less sensitive to dim star light than our eyes.
You’re welcome Jeffery Pritchett, you learned something new today.
Heart Of Winter you’re confused. The Moon, which absorbs around 90 percent of the light that strikes it, is receiving 1,368 watts per square meter, of solar energy.
Pluto is over 33 times as far away from the Sun. The brightness of the Sun diminishes as a square of distance. 33 squared is 1089. Pluto receives 1/1089 the sunlight that we do.
Presently, that is. That is 1.27 watts per square meter.
It is very dark out there, and we know this about the albedo:
” The darkest areas are as dark as coal, reflecting only a few percent of the light that hits it. The brightest areas are almost perfectly reflecting” from: http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~buie/pluto/hrcmap.html
I don’t see the contrast in the alleged NASA picture.
Blakewater what do you mean IF we have the technology to fake this stuff? We do. And faking stuff is easier than doing stuff. We have the ability to send robot probes around the solar system. That doesn’t mean NASA will show us the real pictures. We’ve seen wacky, ridiculous pictures of pentagonal storms on Saturn. And we’ve seen Earth’s desert terrain in Mars pics.
Oops. I forgot. A sphere receives less energy per square meter than a disk would.
You have to divide 1.27 watts by 4, to get the amount of solar energy per meter of Pluto.
OK. Let’s work out the parameters and you can run tests yourselves.
The picture in question was taken with the LORRI camera. This camera is a telescopic design with an aperture of 208mm and a focal length of 2630mm. That works out to a working f-number of about 12.6. The imager is a frame-transfer CCD. Such devices have an equivalent sensitivity, in ISO, of about 100. If you want to be charitable, maybe as much as 200. (The absurd numbers greater than that you may see on a SLR are created by amplification of the signal and noise, not because of increased sensitivity.) The LORRI camera uses exposure times varying between 200ms and 50 ms (1/5 to 1/20 second).
So. Get your hands on a decent digital SLR camera and let’s take pictures of the sky at night. Put the camera in pure manual mode. Set the lens aperture to f-11. Set the “ISO” to 100 (or 200 if you like). Try different shutter speeds between 1/5 and 1/20 second. Point the camera at the stars and see how it works out.
The LORRI specs can be found at:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.4278.pdf
Addendum: I’ve continued looking for some spec for an ISO equivalent for the LORRI camera sensor, but no joy. If the sensor is cooled well below the operating temperatures of the other electronics then its “ISO” could be significantly higher than 200. I’ll keep looking. If anyone actually does this test tonight (I plan to), test higher ISO settings as well.
I am definitely not one to think Nasa is telling the truth about most things. u said “in the darkness of space, why cant we see any stars around Pluto?” because in space u cant se stars!!!! the only reason we see stars on earth is the atmosphere can focus the light and we can see stars!! in the empty vacuum of space, there is nothing to focus the starlight of stars 4-60 light years from earth u dumbass!!! u should really question every Nasa photo that shows stars in them when they are taken from outer space!!!!!
Hubble??????
The stars don’t need to be focused to be seen. And the atmosphere doesn’t focus them.
I suppose you mean “magnify,” so: the thousands that we see don’t need to be magnified and the atmosphere does not magnify them anyway.
NASA has ZERO credibility
i’d be surprised if the photo of Pluto is not altered and ‘blurred’/photoshopped edited before we got the pics online
Is not the first nor the last time they will fake something. Now the question is why would they fake all they have done on many things through the years, they are part of an agenda.
Nothing would surprise me in this world. Do we have a craft up there? Does it matter because if we do then sure as Obama is gay they aren’t going to be showing us any really important stuff or ‘alien’ proof there!!
Thanks for your work Bro
Why does NASA exist?
1. To cover up the real space program.
2. To convince us of the existence of life on other planets.
3. To convince us that rockets are the pinnacle of human propulsion technologies.
Any other ideas?
neo,
agreed.
Rockets are the pinnacle. They don’t have any other way of traveling in space.
They not care what you believe about life on other planets.
They care about large sums of money for contractors.
They care about interest paid to the banks. Forever. Because the debt is rolled over, not paid off.
We are still paying the banks for the Apollo program. And for every program since.
If they had a covert space program, they would not need to “cover it up” with a fake one. They just
wouldn’t tell you about it.
LifeIs, here is why you are wrong on the first point:
/r2/?url=http://www.scribd.com/doc/228767307/Peculiar-Patents-v1-Feb2014
Take the time to read through some of the patents for yourself
Thank you for this excellent information. Never A Straight Answer(nasa) has to cover all the lies that it made up from the beginning from its evil conception. Let me tell nasa a principle of truth, ” You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.! nasa is not invincible and what goes up must come down. They lost all credibility with their fake moon landing.
I am sure , his research wont bring him Ph .D !
I’ve seen similar effects used through media manipulation. You’re not fooling us all, NASA!