Pentagon releases UFO footage

[Pottsey]

Anyone catch that NASA rover photo uploading to the photos page on the NASA site? After someone spotted a "tic tac" type object above ground slightly and it casting a shadow went viral, it has now gone form the NASA images site, hmm wonder why, and when it returns will the object be in the same place?

To add some rational process to this though, Mars has rounded/shiny rocks too which from the right angle and time of day could look like a "UFO":

The problem is those pictures at least the top one I know for sure have been edited by AI which basically = fake, as the AI is adding in fake data to change the object into what it thinks it should be. AI enhanced photos cannot be accepted as evidence or proof of anything.

As for the bottom picture its widely believed Mars used to have a running water. Smooth/round rocks would be expected surly? Plus I am 90% sure some of the Mars photos from NASA are fake in that they are photos from Earth. I know that sounds crazy but there is solid evidence behind this. Its proven NASA edits and fakes some Moon and Mars photos for who knows why.

 

[arknor]

Anyone catch that NASA rover photo uploading to the photos page on the NASA site? After someone spotted a "tic tac" type object above ground slightly and it casting a shadow went viral, it has now gone form the NASA images site, hmm wonder why, and when it returns will the object be in the same place?

looks like a rock to me.

theres other rocks in the image that look kinda the same shape, the outer layers of the rock probably aren't as dense and crack off over time with the changes in extreme temperatures.

theres also no scale its probably tiny

 

[Sankari]

Its proven NASA edits and fakes some Moon and Mars photos for who knows why.

Edits? Yes. Typically for clarity. Fakes? No.

 

[mrk]

I don't think they fake anything, NASA just deletes images or cuts live feeds.

 

[arknor]

I don't think they fake anything, NASA just deletes images or cuts live feeds.

don't they recolour all the space photos and when they stitch photos together they slightly alter them?


GPT claims it's all transparent

Yes, NASA does process and enhance images, but not in a deceptive way. The raw data collected by space telescopes and probes often comes in wavelengths that are invisible to the human eye, such as infrared or ultraviolet. Scientists assign colors to these images to represent different wavelengths, highlight specific features, or improve clarity.


Here are some common types of image processing NASA uses:

1. False Color – Colors are assigned to different wavelengths to make invisible features visible (e.g., infrared images of planets or galaxies).
2. Color Enhancement – Natural colors are adjusted to improve contrast and detail.
3. Composite Images – Multiple images from different filters are combined to create a full-color picture.
4. Artistic Rendering – Some images are adjusted for public outreach, but they are always labeled as such.

 

[mrk]

Yes space photo colouring is necessary as science cameras capture beyond the visible spectrum.

 

[Pottsey]

Edits? Yes. Typically for clarity. Fakes? No.

don't they recolour all the space photos and when they stitch photos together they slightly alter them?


GPT claims it's all transparent

Yes, NASA does process and enhance images, but not in a deceptive way. The raw data collected by space telescopes and probes often comes in wavelengths that are invisible to the human eye, such as infrared or ultraviolet. Scientists assign colors to these images to represent different wavelengths, highlight specific features, or improve clarity.


Here are some common types of image processing NASA uses:

1. False Color – Colors are assigned to different wavelengths to make invisible features visible (e.g., infrared images of planets or galaxies).
2. Color Enhancement – Natural colors are adjusted to improve contrast and detail.
3. Composite Images – Multiple images from different filters are combined to create a full-color picture.
4. Artistic Rendering – Some images are adjusted for public outreach, but they are always labeled as such.

I disagree as some of it is deceptive in my eyes and GPT is wrong here as it often is. Some go beyond just colour enhancements with 14+ layers of processing, large levels of cloning objects. Plus a small handful of photos seem to be taken from Earth and are being passed off as from Mars. Perhaps its innocent mistakes rather then purposely deceptive but the photos that fall into this group are misleading and fake in my eyes. There was a good Why Files episode on this with solid evidence. I understand a bit of colour correction, but at times they have gone to far with cloning objects and I am convinced based on the evidence a tiny portion of the Mars photos are from the NASA testing grounds on Earth mistakenly muddled up into the Mars photos.

 

[arknor]

I disagree as some of it is deceptive in my eyes and GPT is wrong here as it often is. Some go beyond just colour enhancements with 14+ layers of processing, large levels of cloning objects. Plus a small handful of photos seem to be taken from Earth and are being passed off as from Mars. Perhaps its innocent mistakes rather then purposely deceptive but the photos that fall into this group are misleading and fake in my eyes. There was a good Why Files episode on this with solid evidence. I understand a bit of colour correction, but at times they have gone to far with cloning objects and I am convinced based on the evidence a tiny portion of the Mars photos are from the NASA testing grounds on Earth mistakenly muddled up into the Mars photos.

some of the most famous and iconic space "photos" or images as they should probably be called are likely completely imaginary


for example

New infrared view of the Horsehead Nebula — Hubble’s 23rd anniversary image

New infrared view of the Horsehead Nebula — Hubble’s 23rd anniversary image

esahubble.org

This image shows the region in infrared light, which has longer wavelengths than visible light and can pierce through the dusty material that usually obscures the nebula’s inner regions. The result is a rather ethereal and fragile-looking structure, made of delicate folds of gas — very different to the nebula’s appearance in visible light.

in reality they might as well call it an artists impression of how it might look? similar tot he photos of jupiters from the 1800s or 1900s that show cities because we thought people lived there..


I wanna see what they look like with the human eye, I don't have infrared vision


Hubble’s Wide Field Camera 3 observed the pillar on 1-2 February 2010. The colours in this composite image correspond to the glow of oxygen (blue), hydrogen and nitrogen (green), and sulphur (red).

Since when is sulphur red? and oxygen blue? hydrogen blue? nitrogen green? since when?

Hubble captures view of “Mystic Mountain”

Hubble captures view of “Mystic Mountain”

esahubble.org

Might as well take a photo of the earth and have plants purple, the ocean gold, the "air" red etc

 

[Minusorange]

Not actual floating things, just rocks that look like they're floating due to perspective and relative position of shadows from other rocks

 

[Sankari]

I disagree as some of it is deceptive in my eyes

NASA: 'We edit certain media. Here's what we do, how we do it, why we do it, and the media we've done it with.'

Pottsey: 'This is deceptive.'

 

[ethan]

NASA: 'We edit certain media. Here's what we do, how we do it, why we do it, and the media we've done it with.'

Pottsey: 'This is deceptive.'

There was a woman who worked as a slide editor at NASA named Donna Hare, who openly admitted airbrushing anomalies, was a regular thing. So maybe the basis for his his comment or opinion is based on this.