Associated Press Admits NASA Photo Of Antarctica Is... Computer Generated?

Climate changists are going to have problems with this and NASA's history of lying

An Associated Press ‘fact-check’ article has declared that a photo by NASA of Antarctica is in-fact, computer generated using ‘data’ (no mentions on how accurate the data is, of course), quoting (emphasis added):

CLAIM: Image shows Antarctica from space.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. The image is not a photograph, but a visualization of Antarctica created in 2007 using data from NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites that orbit around Earth. The visualization portrays sea ice conditions on September 21, 2005.

AP repeats itself again:

While the visualization does portray the continent based on real data, it is not a photograph.

It’s not even a single snapshot of a single day’s worth of data either. It’s an averaged out composite that cherry picks from two completely different years, quoting AP again (emphasis added):

The terrain comes from the average land cover for the month of September 2004, while the clouds are a composite of several days of imagery over the poles from February 2002.

This damages the credibility of the climate changist movement, because all those people screaming the ice is shrinking appear to be basing their visual observations on computer generated imagery, which in turn is based upon virtual data. Data, which I might point out, has no assuredness of accuracy and can be manipulated.

And no, given the huge failures by government agencies, I am not going to take them at their word and certainly not their reputation. One has to scarcely remind people NASA are not above lying, including lying to the Russian government that a crashed U2 spyplane flown by Francis Gary Powers was a ‘weather craft’, a lie that was exposed when Russia had shown the craft, cameras, pilot… and the photographs of military bases.

Quoting their lie:

The Department has been informed by NASA that, as announced May 3, a U-2 weather research plane based at Adana, Turkey, piloted by a civilian, has been missing since May 1 […]

If the implications aren’t clear to you, the NASA basically straight up accused the Russian government of violently shooting down an an innocent “civilian”, trying to paint them as a corrupt dictator. Zero moral fibre. No qualms about lying.

Francis Gary Powers was in-fact, a military pilot for USAF. Even now, the US lies and insists he was a “civilian” pilot for the CIA, which is a military intelligence agency:

[…] a civilian U-2 pilot for the CIA.

A contradiction in terms if there ever was one. Even Military.com tries to regurgitate the lie and call it a “weather mission”, even though the U-2 was a downward facing plane (the ground is not weather).

That year, Powers joined five other men in Adana, Turkey, to fly "weather missions." […]

Even so, even Military.com admits the NASA didn’t just lie, but outright fabricated evidence:

To lend credibility to this statement on May 6, a U-2 at the NASA Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, California, received fictitious NASA registration and markings and was shown to the press.

A full image of the fake markings can be seen here, a cropped image of the tail is shown below.

U-2 plane’s fictitious NASA markings

As Space.com notes, they even expanded this cover up to using their own base as a backdrop:

To bolster the cover-up, a U-2 was quickly painted in NASA markings, with a fictitious NASA serial number, and put on display for the news media at the NASA Flight Research Center.

That is to say, NASA has no moral qualms for lying to the public and other nation-states if US government policy dictates it. They never apologised for this. They never said they were sorry. In-fact, I am not aware of a single outraged NASA engineer who quit or protested them deceiving the public in this manner.

So the idea they’re using fabricated, computer generated imagery to sell a political agenda like ‘global warming’ (renamed to ‘climate change’ given their tendency to get snowed in) is not in the least bit surprising, because they used fabricated paintwork to sell a political agenda back in the 1960s too - without remorse.

Why not just use real world photographs by satellites they claim to have in orbit and depict the real world? Why the need for computer generated tomfoolery if the real world already shows it? They went to a lot of effort to avoid using actual photographic imagery. Which is ironic given they previously lied about using a U-2 spyplane full of photographic equipment for ‘weather missions’.

If you like my work, be sure to support it by sharing the article link with other people, subscribing or even becoming a supporter.

Want more content like this?

Want to let other people know?