Originally posted by Thamelas
The ones that do not exist on that file, that's what I am trying to say.
If the person that was working on that image saved the file as PSD then it would keep the layers of the image, the image is not "flattened" as when
we save it to JPEG. So, seeing that the image has only the background layer, it means one of several things:
1 - the image was made in Photoshop and "flattened", or, less likely, it was always a one layer image.
2 - the image was made in another program and, once opened in Photoshop, it was saved as PSD just as it was when imported.
3 - the image was made in another program that supports saving to PSD, with or without the possibility of keeping the layers.
When altering an image, the easiest way ito do it s to have several layers, specially if your making corrections to parts of the image, like removing
unwanted objects or people.
Are you serious? How can you even ask that when it is blatantly obvious that the two images were being worked on. You can clearly see where the
two photos are layered one over the other to create a panoramic.
Yes, I can see that one of the images was pasted over the other, but it's the only thing we can see.
Tell me what else do you see on that image that proves anything else besides someone used Photoshop (or other program that uses the same format) to
create that file.
This is a raw image that obviously someone at NASA was working on and forgot about.
It depends on what you call a "raw image", specially considering that's an image made with two photos from a Russian probe. Also, you cannot know
if it was "forgotten" or if any work that was supposed to be done was already done.
The simple fact that this file even exists on a NASA server leads one to further consider the issues in the previous moon image, and the
implications that it may entail: Gary McKinnon's reports of image processing, and the other NASA whistle blowers.
The simple fact that you have three versions of the image from the opening post, two JPEG and one TIFF, shows that NASA uses image processing
software, and this
PSD files doesn't show anything more than that.
A "flat" PSD file is the same as a JPEG, it's useless as a "smoking gun".
No offense, but I don't think you are seeing the proper implications of this.
That's true, I am not seeing any
implications, this is a file like any other file.
Instead I feel you are simply looking for a way to dismiss this.
Not really, I am only trying to show you that what you have is something unique (in the sense that I have never, as far as I remember, seen a PSD file
on a NASA server) but useless, because the only difference is the file format, it only proves that NASA has used (and probably still uses) image
processing programs, and everybody already knew that.
Now, as I said, if you had found a PSD file with several layers, with one of the layers, for example with some rocks, overlaid on a layer in a way to
cover up something on that base layer, that would be an important discovery.
This is not it.
And yes, the server is down, but don't worry, I saved the file on my computer, so at least you have one witness, even if it's a witness that thinks
that your discovery is not important.