posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 05:45 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker
I'm just supposing that, in the past decades before the advent of computers, would the existence of ink or paint on the NASA negatives be
noticed? Or was some other medium alleged to have been used to 'alter' with the airbrush?
I am not an expert but my understanding of the process is as follows, IMHO making it possible to alter large or small areas easily.
For the Copernicus pictures that started this thread it has been pointed out that there are no original negatives available to anyone, they stayed
on-board Lunar Orbiter. All available data are scans from second (or third in case of large assemblies) generation prints. They include a huge
quantity of photographic artifacts that would have been a pain to airbrush. Some of these artifacts are so obvious that I refrained from commenting.
Remember the "tower" or "kangaroo" above Copernicus?
More recent Apollo negatives could have been altered by substituting original negatives with second generation negatives (pictures of airbrushed
prints). However, paraeidolia, wishful thinking and jumping to wrong conclusions are more likely IMHO.
If an amazing looking artifact is visible only in a single lighting condition and point of view what is more likely:
- it has been erased in all all other instances with a different point of view?
- it doesn't exist, just a trick of light and shadows?
There are many ways to explain observed discrepancies. For example Aristarchus looks bluish in some pictures because different hardware, filters and
numeric enhancements were used.
[edit on 2008-2-21 by nablator]