More Potential Ways NASA Doctors Photos

a reply to: LABTECH767
Any future technology is possible. Only time will tell.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Nice post with no evidence of pictures doctored my NASA for religious, economic, social reasons. While trying to justify nerd porn fantasy being passed off as fact.

a reply to: eManym

Still while it sound's like something from star trek if there is even a remote possibility someone, somewhere must have done some research for clandestine reason's though currently I would say our own particle physics is no were near advanced enough, still I found the aperture slit test and mirror universe argument also compelling and that does posit the potential that to quantum entangle and disentangle something displacing it would swap it with it's quantum mirrored self so to maintain it in it's own universe it would have to be done twice, you know the way split photon's mirror one another.

But the truth is that a lot of quantum theory is so far above my own head it is like mysticism almost and indeed one day modern quantum theorists may be seen as the alchemists of the past as and when a better theory of reality comes into play.

The more they delve the more question's they have and pretty soon the size and complexity of the universe would overwhelm even the most gifted intellect's so a human being can only ever focus on a tiny piece of the whole while trying to keep there theory's relevant to other's work, often though I fear that many viable theory's are lost in the face of established theory's that may also work, this in turn may close down other avenues of approach with the resultant loss of new discovery's.

But then some do not really care about peer review and just get on with it but risk becoming regarded as fringe theoretician's at best.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Some years ago there was a thread on ATS with a list of images that were supposedly altered by NASA. I went looking for all of them and most of them were from private sites, not NASA.

But some images with signs of manipulation have appeared on NASA sites, although I have never seen one on the science related sites, only on the more general public related sites. One of such cases is the first image on that video, as you can see here. You can see the editing on the image on that page or on the larger resolution TIFF file.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: wmd_2008

Some years ago there was a thread on ATS with a list of images that were supposedly altered by NASA. I went looking for all of them and most of them were from private sites, not NASA.

But some images with signs of manipulation have appeared on NASA sites, although I have never seen one on the science related sites, only on the more general public related sites. One of such cases is the first image on that video, as you can see here. You can see the editing on the image on that page or on the larger resolution TIFF file.

It's very true that there are many images hosted on NASA sites of the Apollo missions that seem to have been handled by some sort of colour blind chimp. However, there is a big difference between trying to improve an image and deliberately hiding or adding detail. No-one has found any examples of the latter, ever.

The problem that hoaxnuts who rely on people not doing any independent research is that for every poorly processed digital image there are untouched raw scans of them - for example:

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...-91-12342

www.flickr.com...

Not to mention contemporary hard copies like these from my own copy of the 1972 Preliminary Science Report:

There's also this from a 1974 book I own - there is something wrong with this image though, see if anyone can spot it:

Images of Earth, like images of the moon, can be verified against other sources. Not one source has ever contradicted what NASA has produced. Not one. Ever.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
It's very true that there are many images hosted on NASA sites of the Apollo missions that seem to have been handled by some sort of colour blind chimp. However, there is a big difference between trying to improve an image and deliberately hiding or adding detail. No-one has found any examples of the latter, ever.

That depends, if you consider taking a photo of the Moon with Earth in the background and removing all colour from the Moon to make it look completely grey as hiding detail then I have seen that, and that was found here on ATS.

This is the original photo (reduced to fit on ATS).


This is what was found on the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth site.


This is a detail of what ATS member Papajake found.


As you can see, someone decided to put a greyscale version of the Moon over the original. Can that be considered "hiding detail"? Technically, it is, but I think it was just another case of trying to make the photos match what people expect to see.

And yes, the site also had the original photo.

a reply to: ArMaP

I'm very familiar with that photo and I understand the point you're trying to make. However...

Here it as at the GAPE site:

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

My personal view on it is that firstly, the photograph you describe as the original, isn't. It's been heavily processed. The 'original' one appears to be the one shown as the main image (the 1889x1909 version), which is considerably brighter and sharper than the others.

This is an original scan:

www.flickr.com...

as is this:

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...-44-6552

which also has the brown colour cast of the moon and that one may have been the source of the version placed on the GAPE site.

The part about trying to convert a digital image to look 'right' is the important bit. Intuitively, while some astronauts describe the moon in some light as being brown in some lighting conditions, we know that overall the moon is grey. Someone has therefore made it grey to match what we see from Earth. Has any information such as a crater, a mountain, or an alien moon base been added or removed? No.

What looks right relies on the person doing the editing having a good eye for detail and being able to judge things correctly. Photo editors and webmasters are not always astronomers - as can be seen from the second image I linked to above where the 1974 book has Earth the wrong way round. That happened a lot in the early days of Apollo where people just weren't as familiar with the view of Earth as we are now and often misunderstood what they were seeing.

As with the Apollo 15 image, that Apollo 11 photograph exists in physical form in countless magazines, books and hard copy prints from the time. There are sources that can be used as a comparison. How modern digital conversions of those hard copies are treated varies according to the scanner and the eye and competence of the person running it, but I don't regard a colour change as a material change to the content of an image.

e2a: The original poorly edited TIF is still there, it's under the 'Download options' tab as the 4200x4188 version:

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

None of the other versions have it the issue identified. You can also see that the Earth has been similarly botched in an attempt to make it look 'right', but the details in it are completely consistent with the satellite record.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
My personal view on it is that firstly, the photograph you describe as the original, isn't.

When I called that image "original" I meant when compared with the altered image.

It's been heavily processed. The 'original' one appears to be the one shown as the main image (the 1889x1909 version), which is considerably brighter and sharper than the others.

Yes, but the problem is that an original cannot be smaller than a copy, so they had to have an original with at least 4400x4600.

This is an original scan:

www.flickr.com...

I doubt a JPEG is an original scan.

as is this:

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...-44-6552

which also has the brown colour cast of the moon and that one may have been the source of the version placed on the GAPE site.

That one does look like a first or second generation digital version, and the colours appear to be the same that were covered by the greyscale version of the Moon.

The part about trying to convert a digital image to look 'right' is the important bit. Intuitively, while some astronauts describe the moon in some light as being brown in some lighting conditions, we know that overall the moon is grey. Someone has therefore made it grey to match what we see from Earth. Has any information such as a crater, a mountain, or an alien moon base been added or removed? No.

No, the only information that was removed was colour, that's why I started by saying that if you consider removing colour hiding detail then yes, I have seen it. Obviously, if you do not consider colour as detail then this case doesn't apply.

e2a: The original poorly edited TIF is still there, it's under the 'Download options' tab as the 4200x4188 version:

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

The 4400x4800 image is the same, only bigger.

None of the other versions have it the issue identified. You can also see that the Earth has been similarly botched in an attempt to make it look 'right', but the details in it are completely consistent with the satellite record.

Yes, none of the JPEG versions are affected by that editing, but I would expect the JPEGs to be converted version of the TIFF images (when used for archiving purposes they are saved without compression, to avoid decompression problems and reduce the possibilities of technological obsolescence), not the opposite.

It's a strange situation.

But, as I said before, there are other, apparently unedited, versions of the image, so nothing is being completely hidden.

a reply to: ArMaP

I've been looking some more at this particular image, and if you look at the other versions of it you can see that there is another feature.

Here's the TIF image superimposed on the Flickr Archive version:

and here is a close up of the right hand edge:

The 4400*4600 version of the same image aligns correctly with the original and has none of the edges missing, so it isn't the same as the version with the miscoloured edge.

So, whoever was responsible for this image was pretty useless at their job and shouldn't be let near adjustment layers.

Never assume conspiracy when incompetence will suffice

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

never under-estimate the imagination of conspiracy believers [ nor the sheer additional complexity they will add to a tail ]

regards this image - its " obvious " that the " errors " were delibereatly made by a brave whistleblower who wanted to leave clues that apollo was a hoax

and yes - i has had that exact claim made by HBs in the past

I'm not completely convinced that NASA / JPL "doctors" photos as much as they simply aren't that good at taking them. They don't have a good eye for composition, and they often leave out the things that are most interesting to people. With Curiosity, they leave the raw images soaking in a yellow filter and only seem to focus on the dullest and most uninteresting features. But I think it's really just a matter of them not being very good photographers. For the lunar stuff, those guys were test pilots, not artists. And on Mars, the rover decides what to take a picture of. If anything cool or interesting happens to be photographed, it's just by sheer chance.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Never assume conspiracy when incompetence will suffice

Never do.

Now, there's another interesting case I witnessed some years ago (the time does fly...) and that is also most probably a case of incompetence.

In 2010 an ATS member, DrBunsen found a photo on a NASA site that was clearly manipulated, this one.



At the time I made an animated GIF to help other people see the difference. It could have been better done, but here it is anyway.



As we can see, again, there was nothing special removed, but the clone tool (or similar) was used to copy parts of the ground to cover other parts.

This case had an interesting end: the image was removed from NASA's site and replaced by one unedited version, so they either noticed the image or someone aware of the ATS discussion told them.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: JimOberg

Oh come on man that Lady Donna hair and the others are not lying, of course they are not currently employed by NASA -

Who said she was lying? My challenge is for anybody to reconcile her claim to have seen pre-release pictures of Earth's surface being altered to remove stuff, and in the picturees you could see shadows of individual trees and the tree's shadow, with the fact that in ALL the Earth surface photos released in those years, the resolution [detail] was far too poor to recognize individual trees. Among ALL such photos released in those years to commercial and media users, I challenged ANYBODY who believed her story to show me ANY such photo where a tree and its shadow were discernable. Two decades and counting, NOBODY has found a single one. Deduction: her memory of what she saw was impossible to accept as accurate.

a reply to: ArMaP

I vaguely remember this one, and yes it is really odd. For those who don't know it's a still from the 16mm footage shot from the LM, and stills from it (though not necessarily this specific one) were published in the press, eg this on from the UK's Daily Mirror:

onebigmonkey.com...

and some of the colour ones I've managed to get hold of here:

onebigmonkey.com...

The astronauts may not be there, but the area around the TV camera is and again it shows that the now digital material was available in pre-digital era. The 16mm footage could also be purchased from NASA at the time.

My best guess would be that, in seeing something that the photo editor thought was an blemish in the image, they got a little enthusiastic with the clone tool when removing it, inadvertently adding a duplicate footprint. Anyone who has used the clone stamp in photoshop knows just how easy that is to do. It's always possible that they became aware of the fuss over the image, but could equally have spotted it themselves.

What's interesting is that that it was spotted. No-one was taken in by it. The supposedly all powerful NASA didn't get away with anything, mainly because other sources were available as a cross reference. No-one can reliably draw a conclusion that there was some subterfuge attempted here, but they can definitely conclude that someone cocked up.