NASA Employed Photo Artists to Airbrush Lunar Anomolies

Originally posted by ecoparity
His statements can be argued both ways if we limit the field to this interview alone, it comes down to interpretation if we leave out all the other interviews.

Fine, let's pursue this and maybe even add questions to upcoming interviews. I expect his story has yet to be fully expounded.

If it really was so easy to do all the hacking he claims to have done, I'm surprised that other folks haven't stepped forward -- or posted anonymously -- that they can corroborate what he says he found.

From my own experience with computer security -- and I taught classes about the threat back when I was on the faculty of the DoD Computer Institute in the Washington Navy Yard in 1973-1975, and kept up with developments over the years -- one of the easiest countermeasures is to set up "honey traps" -- files and folders with attractive names to hackers, where they can get 'stuck' long enough to get caught.

'Payroll' might be one, or 'security incidents', or even "alien contact". Is it possible that Gary just stumbled into one of those traps, which would be designed to take enough time to navigate that automatic alarms could sound at SysOps and then back-tracing could be performed. The claim that Gary saw a 'hand' move across the screen might be delusional, or it might be evidence that he had triggered such an intruder alarm.

OK, let's dig into this and see what we find.

Originally posted by ecoparity
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Sat photo of Soviet airfield from the 1960's:

The forested areas are visible and this isn't even a quality example. It's extremely low resolution, compressed and scaled to death. I can still make out the trees and some shadows though.

I still have to ask though - did she make a clear statement that indicates a single tree or not and based on this photo do you think you would be able to see a lone tree? (All the quotes I've found are plural, "trees") but your counter is that a single tree is not visible in the sat photos of that time. I dunno, Jim - even based on this poor example I'd have to say even a single tree would be visible and a large saucer shaped object would be even more so.

This is an NRO Keyhole image, right? Remember, I'm talking about images that would be in JSC Bldg 8 in the early 1970s.

If you can see trees and shadows in this picture, you have a lot better visual acuity than I do. But it's possible -- so use the shadows to tell us the direction of the sun when this picture was taken. Then we can compare that to the data on record for the image.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by ecoparity
If you haven't been paid to represent psicop or the anti conspiracy skeptic position on TV and radio interviews or the articles you're written then I'll withdraw the comment. I'm not claiming NASA and the Masonic Nazis are paying you to hang out on ATS and get frustrated by people like me, two completely different things there.

I don't really care. Actually, making the comment told us all a lot more about you than it did about me.

So I'm assuming you have been paid in that role then. It's not the same thing as the "paid disinfo" accusation you're used to hearing but I wanted to point out how easy it is to raise questions of character. (Not that you're not very aware of how to do it based on this discussion).

What did everyone find out about me from that post, that I'm familiar with Hoagland's book and made a joke about it? Hoagland comes up with some wild stuff but I'm not one of the anointed believers. He has some interesting questions and strange but interesting interpretations of various things. I support his quest for answers to some of those questions but I'm not taking a position other than some things seem legit, some don't and quite a few need more data.

I find the entire Nazi / Masonic thing hilarious and don't believe the conspiracy has been proven on that issue but I can't say I'm not curious about some of the questions. If I were a Mason or even an Aggie I'd probably take the representative flag to the moon given a chance. Hell, I can make a list a mile long of weird stuff I'd take up there just to get a photo of it to impress the group in question with. (Not to mention the fabulous eBay value which would result).

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by ecoparity
His statements can be argued both ways if we limit the field to this interview alone, it comes down to interpretation if we leave out all the other interviews.

Fine, let's pursue this and maybe even add questions to upcoming interviews. I expect his story has yet to be fully expounded.

If it really was so easy to do all the hacking he claims to have done, I'm surprised that other folks haven't stepped forward -- or posted anonymously -- that they can corroborate what he says he found.

From my own experience with computer security -- and I taught classes about the threat back when I was on the faculty of the DoD Computer Institute in the Washington Navy Yard in 1973-1975, and kept up with developments over the years -- one of the easiest countermeasures is to set up "honey traps" -- files and folders with attractive names to hackers, where they can get 'stuck' long enough to get caught.

'Payroll' might be one, or 'security incidents', or even "alien contact". Is it possible that Gary just stumbled into one of those traps, which would be designed to take enough time to navigate that automatic alarms could sound at SysOps and then back-tracing could be performed. The claim that Gary saw a 'hand' move across the screen might be delusional, or it might be evidence that he had triggered such an intruder alarm.

OK, let's dig into this and see what we find.

So NASA plants honey traps with labels of "ET Photos" to trap all the UFO believers willing to hack into a government server? I mean I guess I could see it if this were a common very occurrence but no, there's no evidence of that so I have to dismiss it pending some sort of corroboration.

Gary has been clear about how he "broke" into that specific computer as well as others. In this case a contractor has installed VNC, a remote desktop program and neglected to disable a built in admin password. In some cases Gary used another method to break in and installed VNC himself on the target computer(s).

Anyone who could come up with the correct IP or network host name could have connected. Other than the Chinese I'm not aware of anyone publicly admitting they've gotten in but I have read intrusions on those networks have been very common in the past.

The description of the hand across the screen is actually a description of someone taking control and moving the mouse at the physical location of the computer. That would be an indication that he was caught, anyone standing in front of the computer would be able to see on the monitor what Gary was doing.

In his quotes he says Donna listed a specific folder structure and that he found it exactly as she described. Granted this doesn't mean automatic verification of all her claims but checking the pre-edit folder he claims the first photo he pulled up had a "non Earth" vehicle of some kind. If I had log files from the computer and could verify all the events he describes occurred even without seeing the photo I'd have to say he's proven Donna's claims.

The other half of this is the US govt reaction. Life in a federal pen seems a bit harsh but having been a witness on a hacking case in the past I've learned some of the things the US prosecutors did are very common in state and federal hacking cases where the defendant breaches a government network (be it local, state or federal).

They always exaggerate the damages to astronomic levels in order to get the harshest punishment. Always. Gary is now assigned the blame and cost for a multi million dollar security audit and hardening of each and every network he so much as thought about breaching. It's a great scam actually, it's like leaving the keys in your 86 olds with the engine running and the lights on in the worst hood imaginable and when it gets stolen the criminal gets to pay for a 2009 Mercedes replacement. Oh well, don't do the crime and all that.

What really convinces me on this one is the fact that Gary was willing to play ball if the US attorney had been willing. He held back on telling quite a few details and basically had his lawyer tell the US govt "if you want this to remain a secret we're willing to cooperate, just don't kill me". When they announced a desire to bury him under the jail he started talking. He's not high in credibility but even criminals are used as witnesses, more often than most people realize. If the statement fits the evidence and known facts of the case enough they are considered credible in this instance regardless of other issues.

I'm not calling him an ideal witness, far from it but looking at the entire case I find him to be believable. It just fits not to mention there's no real benefit for him to lie. Once you're busted claiming to have seen evidence of conspiracy is not going to win you any points with the prosecutors. I'm aware there's a counter argument there but counting on the UFO community to save your ass in this scenario would be very, very foolish. Not that hacking NASA isn't foolish but it goes to an extreme I find unlikely.

Originally posted by ecoparity
In his quotes he says Donna listed a specific folder structure and that he found it exactly as she described. Granted this doesn't mean automatic verification of all her claims but checking the pre-edit folder he claims the first photo he pulled up had a "non Earth" vehicle of some kind. If I had log files from the computer and could verify all the events he describes occurred even without seeing the photo I'd have to say he's proven Donna's claims.

Interesting, I'd never seen any report from Hare describing a specific folder structure. I'd like to find that quotation, or consider one other alternative -- Gary imagined it, or invented it afterwards to buttress up the interpretation he preferred.

Can any lurker here locate any Donna Hare description of the file structure of the alleged pre and post altered images?

I formally request that NASA no longer be allowed to fly so much as a paper airplane over my property based on Mr Oberg's disclosure. While I respect and admire the fine work of the majority of NASA's personnel it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the bunch and well, I won't be able to sleep at night knowing a bad de-orbit and vaporization of my home and children is at the mercy of whoever managed to sneak in the door of mission control that day. Please re-route all satellites, rockets and space stations away from the vertical space corridor over the enclosed GPS coordinates ASAP.

I'll await your replies from a bed and breakfast in Alaska.
Thanks,
eco

OMG!!!!!!!! ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!! people at my work are wondering why the hell I'm lauging so loud. I just can't help it. That may be one of the funniest things I have ever read. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Thanks for the laugh!!!! I haven't laughed that loud in forever. Not so much as a paper airplane... HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

And just to put something on topic. I agree with Zorgon, he usually puts his facts before his opinions.

As far as NASA hiring people to airbrush photos. It would seem their incompatence knows no end. You would think if they were doing this, with the kind of budget they have it would be unnoticable. But hey, we're all human right? Well at least I think we are.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by INJUNJAY]

Originally posted by INJUNJAY
As far as NASA hiring people to airbrush photos. It would seem their incompatence knows no end. You would think if they were doing this, with the kind of budget they have it would be unnoticable. But hey, we're all human right? Well at least I think we are.

I didn't think the letter was that funny, but the whole concept in the OP is very funny as you just pointed out. If NASA wanted to airbrush something I'm sure it would be done a lot better than the huge artifact blobs we see in the clementine 1.5 image browser!

Why that isn't extremely obvious to everyone escapes me, but I'm glad you noticed that too!

Regarding Donna Hare stating anything about a file structure that McKinnon confirmed, I heard Mckinnon make such claims but I never heard Donna Hare say anything about that so I too would like to see the source for that part of the story.

I also make some structured folders when i process my photos (i said previously - www.abovetopsecret.com... - what kind of processing i make, similar to what NASA does as people say here), structured folders something like this:

orig (original "raw" files)
exif (original exif data saved for backup purposes)
proc cafree (processed with cafree - which is a photoshop add-on)
proc (processed to the end)
rev (to be reviewed)
tif (tiff intermediate versions)
ready (finalised - renamed classified etc)/

and somethink like that depending on intermediate steps

An like me, other people processing (tampering) their photos, as a normal process.

But NASA should not do this, because is suspiciously ?!?







[edit on 17/9/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by ecoparity
In his quotes he says Donna listed a specific folder structure and that he found it exactly as she described. Granted this doesn't mean automatic verification of all her claims but checking the pre-edit folder he claims the first photo he pulled up had a "non Earth" vehicle of some kind. If I had log files from the computer and could verify all the events he describes occurred even without seeing the photo I'd have to say he's proven Donna's claims.

Interesting, I'd never seen any report from Hare describing a specific folder structure. I'd like to find that quotation, or consider one other alternative -- Gary imagined it, or invented it afterwards to buttress up the interpretation he preferred.

Can any lurker here locate any Donna Hare description of the file structure of the alleged pre and post altered images?

I'm currently working back and forth between a UK and NZ based project so I need to get some sleep now. If someone else doesn't beat me to it in the meantime I'll dig up the Donna Hare quotes and work on the sat image thing. I'm fairly sure the Donna Hare quote is in her disclosure project testimony, the full version they charged for but I have the complete briefing docs and testimonies on one of these servers, just have to hope spotlight has indexed the Unix boxes.

The sat image I posted is from 1966, if they improved the bird by 77 I'd hope the resolution would be even better. If anyone could look up which birds NASA was using at that time I'd appreciate it though the actual date of the photo Donna claimed to see isn't known, just the time period when the incident supposedly took place. Every example of her discussing it I can find refers to "trees" in plural, not "a tree" and furthermore she defines the species as being pine which can grow very, very tall. A grove, forest or flock of 100 foot pines would leave a very apparent shadow, IMO.

As for the extremely low rez example image I posted the shadows are casting from the right side of the photo towards the left. The hanger and bridge structure just below the runway / taxiway provides one of the easiest to see, the forest area towards the bottom has a visible shadow as well though it is much harder to spot.

If you look at the left half of the photo, above halfway you can see an area with sparse trees in it and make out individual trees, by the way.

I'd love to see a decent resolution specimen from the year in question for comparison.

On some of the "blobs" on the Clementine photos - I would guess the worst of these are actually developing errors rather than airbrushing. You can discern between the two if you know what to look for, the developing errors have more of a 3d look and in some cases actually look like something sitting on top of the photo. The air brushed examples I've seen have a flatter look and will usually be smaller. The example photo in this thread looks like a decent one, you can make out an object behind the overlay. Try to keep in mind exactly what the process of "airbrushing" photos was back then. It was not as smooth as the computer edits we're all used to, especially when performed over an area larger than a dot. It took someone with real artistic talent in painting to do large edits that blended in and were hard to see. The public images being released in the moon landing days were pretty low resolution and it didn't take a high level of artistic detail to blend things out of the lunar surface or black "sky".

I do agree with those who say the majority of "airbrushed" photos are actually developing errors. There's some decent examples of cover up but they're fewer in number than claimed, IMO.

reply to post by ecoparity

The Clementine images were never "developed". They are fully digital. Both the v1.5 viewer and the v2.0 viewer construct images on demand, depending on the filters, location, and scale requested. The problems with v1.5 which resulted in the "airbrushing" were resolved in v2.0.

www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

[edit on 9/17/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage

Right.

Now that they made the clementine 2.0 browser available to us, I don't feel compelled to go spend $880 on the "non-airbrushed" images:

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Not even at only .05 cents for each image?

1.8 million of 'em.

[edit on 9/17/2009 by Phage]

Back in the early '80s when I got involved with the emerging claims by some individuals that they could see in certain NASA photos taken by various Orbiters sings of alien activity and habitation. Since there was no Internet, the claims were given space in FATE magazine in the Letters To The Editor. Included in the claims were those of NASA airbrushing photos to hide the unnamed. Of course, I quickly jumped in and challenged the claimants to show just ONE before and after photo. No one ever did.

I challenged author Steckling to put his money where his mouth was regarding his photographic claims in his awful book "WE DISCOVERED ALIEN BASES ON THE MOON" and he wrote me to tell me a meeting was not necessary as he agreed that his claims could not be supported. I still hold to my challenge to anyone claiming that NASA did or does airbrush photos whether of the Moon or Mars or wherever. Someone is always someone someone else...

Regarding comparisons of NASA images of the Moon, if it's digital then it goes without saying that "garbage in, garbage out." Compared to the old Lunar Orbiter high-resolution images, the digital ones just plain suck! I say this because I own a copy of the NASA book "LUNAR ORBITER PHOTOGRAPHIC ATLAS OF THE MOON" and the quality of the photos is superior to the digital copy found at www.lpi.usra.edu...

I also have 7 or 8 additional NASA lunar books and the quality of the images could never be as good in the digital domain. A computer specialist processed a NASA photo of a certain crater which was on the side of a larger crater and this small crater was leaking lava(?). This photo was used by the mentally-challenged to claim that the resolution of the digital photo showed an anomaly or a tower-like structure meaning it was built by aliens. So the computer specialist digitized the photo beyond mondo resulting in an ultra-pixilated image which, of course, distorted the original image into making it look like it was a tower-like structure.

But the same photo in one of my books looks just a small crater spewing lava down the side! Digital version? No thanks.



[edit on 17-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

The fact is, the mission took approx 1.5 million images of the moon, only about 200,000 have been ever been released.

Why would they airbrush and then release the images?
Well, they HAD to show us at least some of the images didn't they!

They have already held 1.3 million images back from the public, and so the obvious conclusion about airbrushing and releasing is that there are SO MANY artifacts and artificial structures and evidence, that the one's the have condescended to release were probably some of the least 'contraversial' among the total amount.

Yea.. ok, I am not buying that the entire moon's surface was just SO covered in alien artifacts, that they had to release some images and airbrush stuff out. Seriously.. we have amateur astronomers who can get some very close and vivid images of the moon, and the best we get are meteor paths leaving trails that someone insists is a road. There are not domes, there are no cities, nothing.

Yet, the entire surface is SO dotted with alien architecture, more than 3/4s had images of this? yea.. ok.. if you want to believe that, you go ahead.

I'll continue to believe that the moon is covered in rocks.

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
I still hold to my challenge to anyone claiming that NASA did or does airbrush photos whether of the Moon or Mars or wherever.

Here is an example of NASA being caught altering Mars images - the images below were taken from inside Endurance Crater/Sol 67, and you will notice some major discrepancies between the two images. The differences between these images are readily apparent, as you shall see below - vis-a-vis the insertion of an artificial skyline:


This is the original image - it is hosted on NASA's server.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/91955ee41954.jpg[/atsimg]
(source: marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...)


This image is of the same area, however an artificial skyline has been created by the removal of some of the image data- this image is hosted on NASA's server.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/524610fdf800.jpg[/atsimg]
(source; marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...)

*Airbrushing... Pfft. That's old hat.




[edit on 17-9-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


It's a good thing they altered that 2nd photo, otherwise the Mars base that shows up in the first photo would show up in the 2nd photo too, right? Now where exactly is the mars base in the first photo they are trying to hide? I'm squinting really hard. Wait a minute...maybe there is no Mars base in the first photo?

If you really wanted to know so badly what happened to the 2nd image, you might try asking NASA, somebody there might know. I don't, however I don't see anything in particular in the top photo they are trying to hide by modifying the 2nd image.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

It's a good thing they altered that 2nd photo....

I am glad that you agree that the image was altered.




[edit on 17-9-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by ecoparity


Seriousely not worth arguing with this boy as anyone over 18 would already know this stuff if they spend any amount of time researching the info.He is proably a religion whack job or like that comic store owner from the "simpsons"..lol "worst story ever"

reply to post by Arbitrageur

The first image is taken by the right camera. The second image is taken by the left camera. Both images were taken at the same time. This can be determined by the photo IDs.

It is not an airbrushed "artificial skyline". It appears that this is a product of the automatic onboard image processing.

As each twin-lens CCD (charge-coupled device) camera takes pictures, the electronic images will be sent to the rover's onboard computer for a number of image processing steps, including compression, before the data are sent to Earth.

www.news.cornell.edu...

The raw data, before processing for transmission, can be retrieved from Earth if necessary. In this case, since the right camera image is fine (there are actually two images, each with a different filter), there was no reason to use the bandwidth to do so.