Nasa doesn't photoshop??

The flip side yes we do have a not so secret space program .
But dont take that to mean we have bases on the moon or mars .
the sortie secret ( kind of hard to launch a rocket in secret lol
space programe uses the same rockets the not secret one does .
Now take a good long look at a delta and convince your self they are sending people to mars in that lololol .

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
a reply to: sean

Here is some constructive advise

If you find an Apollo image that you think is anomalous, go to the Apollo Image Atlas and look around at other photos to substantiate your theory

..and I'd add to those the Project Apollo Flickr Archive:

www.flickr.com...

and the ALSJ & AFJ:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

history.nasa.gov...

and the 'March to the Moon' site:

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...

and for more orbital imagery taken during Apollo:

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

Happy hunting.

Not to mention all the magazines, books and journals published a long long time before photoshop.

a reply to: sean

NASA does doctor images, but not in the way you think.

Tin foil hats off folks- they add filters, adjust resolution and tinker with the RGB and that can leave artifacts which may seem odd.

a reply to: sean

I can't help but think about those shiny mylar looking surfaces being statically charged, yet they shine like a new penny after that horrendous dust storm before the landing...Too clean, even if there were no static build-up. Also the right rear leg looks fake as heck....JMO.

a reply to: donktheclown

OK, source for how much static charge there would be and where it would originate from, and yes there was dust, but with no atmosphere that dust was fired off towards the horizon - there was no storm.

you have to be kidding me....
thats the FREAKING ENGINE BELL!

a reply to: Zarniwoop

oh wait its not the engine bell as i thought
thanks zanni!

a reply to: sean

lol butthurt

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
NASA does doctor images, but not in the way you think.

Sometime they do, as you can read here. The original images are long gone, but the image below explains what the image looked like, and the original file is still available in another forum.



There was another case of a photo taken from the Lunar Module showing footprints and the flag and one NASA site had a version in which they used the clone tool to add more footprints. I haven't found that thread yet.

And there's this image, still on a NASA site, in which we can see some manipulation, probably to make the photo look "better".

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

a reply to: ArMaP

The original images are not long gone, they are stored in a vault and what we usually see are 3rd, 4th or more generation copies and scans and re-scans of those originals. The two examples you show directly have obviously had levels tweaked to make things stand out better but there is a big difference between that adding something that isn't there and removing something that is. You also have the benefit of other data sources to verify what's in them in terms of satellite images of Earth and moon.

The Project Apollo Flickr archive and the 'March to the Moon' sites I linked to above are the best sources as these are largely unprocessed raw images. There are also countless versions of those images in print dating from the time that are not photoshopped.

As for the cloned footprints you speak of, I'd need to see an example of it or it's just hearsay.

People get their knickers in a twist over Photoshop, but the reality is it is the industry standard tool for dealing with images and finding its name in metadata does not mean that anything has been faked. If that were the case none of my holiday snaps are genuine.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
NASA does doctor images, but not in the way you think.

Sometime they do, as you can read here. The original images are long gone, but the image below explains what the image looked like, and the original file is still available in another forum.

If you go to the project flckr site as 'OneBigMonkey' mentioned, you can see a more original version of that image. That image in your post is probably a multi-generation image that had collected different digital scanning artifacts (and possibly even a poorly-done original physical print) over the years.

I believe the original for that image is from Apollo 11, image number AS11-44-6552, and can be found though this link:

www.flickr.com...

If you look at that linked verson of the image, you will see none of the artifacts mentioned.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
As for the cloned footprints you speak of, I'd need to see an example of it or it's just hearsay.

NASA did have a photoshopped image online, but I have no idea why they photoshopped it.

There was an ATS thread about it and one of the ATS members asked NASA why was the image photoshopped (or similarly edited with photoshop-type artifacts), and the NASA employee said he didn't know but he replaced the photoshopped image with one that wasn't photoshopped, on the 23 of February, 2010. I saved the before and after images.

The photoshopping artifacts from a cloning tool (or some similar editing procedure if it was done before photoshop) can be seen in the upper right hand corner of this image:



After NASA was contacted by the ATS member they replaced the photoshopped image with one that isn't photoshopped (or at least it doesn't have the same obvious photoshopping artifacts). Here's a comparison of what was on the website in the morning versus what was on the website in the afternoon, on the 23 of February, 2010.:



There's no plausible conspiracy theory to go with this that I can think of, and if NASA can't explain why they did it, I sure can't, but apparently they thought they had some reason to do it at some point.

My understanding is that you can go see the raw images if you have a good enough reason, but they're very fragile and in special storage so they don't take them out on just anybody's whim. If I ever decided to look at a raw image though, I'd probably check this one out, because I'm a little disappointed that NASA provided no explanation for what they did here.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
The original images are not long gone, they are stored in a vault and what we usually see are 3rd, 4th or more generation copies and scans and re-scans of those originals.

I said the original images, not the original photos, as I was talking about the altered images. The altered images on that first case were replaced a little time after being found.

The two examples you show directly have obviously had levels tweaked to make things stand out better but there is a big difference between that adding something that isn't there and removing something that is.

No, the two examples I show had more than levels tweaked, they had selective tweaking, so on the first example the Moon looked grey and the sky completely black and again the sky completely black on the second.
In both examples the whole sky was removed.

You also have the benefit of other data sources to verify what's in them in terms of satellite images of Earth and moon.

Sure we have, but I was only pointing that NASA has been known to change photos published on their sites.

The Project Apollo Flickr archive and the 'March to the Moon' sites I linked to above are the best sources as these are largely unprocessed raw images. There are also countless versions of those images in print dating from the time that are not photoshopped.

The Project Apollo Flickr page uses photos already available on the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (with the added possibility of downloading the TIFF files, although most people prefer a 2 MB JPEG to a 200 MB TIFF), they only posted them to a Flickr page for visibility.

As for the cloned footprints you speak of, I'd need to see an example of it or it's just hearsay.

I don't know if I still have or if I can find a copy of the altered image, but it's not hearsay to me, as I saw the image.

People get their knickers in a twist over Photoshop, but the reality is it is the industry standard tool for dealing with images and finding its name in metadata does not mean that anything has been faked. If that were the case none of my holiday snaps are genuine.

We are not talking about finding Photoshop metadata on the images, we are talking about altered images.

originally posted by: donktheclown
a reply to: sean

I can't help but think about those shiny mylar looking surfaces being statically charged, yet they shine like a new penny after that horrendous dust storm before the landing...Too clean, even if there were no static build-up. Also the right rear leg looks fake as heck....JMO.

" horrendous dust storm before the landing" -- you provide a perfect example of why using pre-space earth-based images for non-earth environments can be misleading. The dust raised in the landing was being propelled by the engine exhaust AWAY from the site, none of it billowed up and hung around like it would on Earth. There was no air to suspend it in. [as OneBigMinkeyToo already has pointed out]

It’s not intelligence that I’ve realized is the major barrier to public authentic assessment of these scenes – it’s lack of effective awareness of really how unearthly, alien, and counter-intuitive counter-instinctual the new space environment really is. That’s why I wrote my “99 FAQs About Space UFO Videos” essay several years ago, based on my 20+ years inside Mission Control in Houston, and my personal fascination with UFO stories associated in the media with space flight. See it here -- www.jamesoberg.com...

originally posted by: sean
In my opinion, this is Irrefutable proof.

Two horizons. One under the lander showing a rock with shadow off in the distance and then we have a completely different horizon off to the right of the lander. You can even see where they stitched the images together down below. Look at the perspective on the big crater next to the lander. ROFL!

It really makes you wonder what's real and what's not. What else did they fake? Why alter the real picture at all? I guess it's ok to paste a gorilla's head on a human body once in a while.

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Nope it isn't.... what you are seeing below the lander is not a horizon. It's where the crater behind the lander makes a decline. The blackness is because that crater is no a flat hole, but has a raised left side and back. So the opposite edge of the crater is actually higher up than the edge closer to the lander. Ie: it slopes... as well does the right side of the image. It's a slope upwards.

There is no stitching visible.... there is however as with many of these Hasselblad shots, a lot of crosses embedded in the film.

Meh, I'm late to the party, and see it's been answered that is the Surveyor crater in the OP's image.

When coming across threads like this, my first point of call is the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, which has high-rez versions of the images, grouped by the film magazine. Looking at other photos in the same series often provides a clue as to what we're looking at. Such as, in this example, the Surveyor crater: www.hq.nasa.gov...

~~~

On a related note, some obvious image artifacts in NASA's images are simply panorama-stitching artifacts, or things to do with the camera.

a reply to: donktheclown

The dust is blown away from the lander by the engine, by what mechanic do you think any substantial amount would come into contact with the lander? If the lander WAS covered in dust that would be an obvious sign of fakery as the laws of physics would have to be violated for that to happen.

a reply to: ArMaP

Parsing was too complicated, so I'll respond as best I can.

You may have been responding about altered images, that wasn't clear to me, but my point remains - whatever has been altered in the digital versions of the originals is both obvious and arguably insignificant - nothing material has been altered. The fact that the changes were spotted makes my point for me - they can be compared to originals and referenced to other sources.

As for the Flickr archive, it collates together many sources, including the Gateway (the option to download high quality TIFFs was always available from there, but the images were not easy to find). It's also not an official NASA site, and while the ALSJ and AFJ are hosted by NASA they are not administered by it (I have met two of the AFJ organisers, very nice gents).

As for the altered image with too many footsteps that image I believe was provided in a previous post so I can see what was meant. Again, the availability of non-digital original versions is widespread. I have an 8mm home movie sold by the Daily Express newspaper that features the 16mm footage from which the still was taken. I also have a slide from a set sold by the same newspaper - seen here in my handy vintage viewer:



Here's a still from the entire sequence - easily located on youtube:



So while a small change was obviously made, the originals are still there to show that the change was minor. Why was it done? Who knows. Perhaps a blemish on the print (or something mistaken as for a blemish) that was scanned that was over-enthusiastically treated?

Whatever the reason we have original material to look at, and a change in one still on one site does not invalidate an entire collection of imagery. Over-enthusiastic and clumsy image editing can not be taken as proof of malign intent or that that there is any underlying motive other than making the image look better

My point about photoshop was a general one - I see regular bouts of hysteria all over the internet about metadata featuring photoshop and it means precisely nothing.

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: nepatitan

originally posted by: sean

originally posted by: nepatitan
Do you know what landing site this is. It appears to me they are next to a crater

Edit: I found it lol

It's apollo12.

Ok I found it thanks. I think what you are seeing is the front edge of the Surveyor crater behind the lander
google earth screenshot

Here is another view
second screen shot

I gotta admit it did look pretty funny until seeing this. It didn't look photoshopped but something looked weird. Seeing it from that angle it makes more sense.

Yep it's a very cool illusion. It's at just the right angle.

I'll link those images again for anybody who missed. This is the original image the OP says is photoshopped:
spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo12/hires/as12 -46-6726.jpg

This is the image which shows hte scene from a different angle. You can see the second horizon under the lander--referred to by the OP--is actually part of the terrain. The illusion is so good I'm flabbergasted:
i.imgur.com/xA8ixKj.jpg

originally posted by: sean
a reply to: nepatitan

Hmm that may be the reason why. You came up with that explanation fast.

it's hte matrix man! The agents are fast.