NASA Employed Photo Artists to Airbrush Lunar Anomolies

Originally posted by Chovy
reply to post by jd140

 

She had access to restricted areas for 15 years. Imagine all the crazy things she seen.

All in all the evidences presented so far are a crock mate: did she take some nice picture or are we supposed to chat about those poor guys who made the first job on Clementine? Do you think that they were so desperate to hire someone unable to retouch the stuff in some way that you CANNOT notice? I ask for some proof, where is it? Come on, start from PROOF # 1, we are all here waiting from it.

The greatest story ever denied... nasa airbrused ufos

m.youtube.com...#/watch?v=w3wGLC_sjTQ&client=mv-google

I hope the link works

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Chovy]

perhaps germane to the issue at hand:

Why I Find Donna Tietze Hare’s UFO Stories Unworthy of Belief
James Oberg // July 2004 // excerpt from Purdue debate with Greer

Now, why would I be unwilling to believe the stories that Dr. Greer has presented from one of his star witnesses, Donna Hare? Again, without any reason to impugn her intelligence, sincerity, or integrity, let me explain why I find it impossible to believe her claims about secret UFO information covered up at NASA.

Ms. Hare worked at the NASA center in Houston for a number of years between the Apollo and the beginning of the Shuttle program. She has testified that:

1. She saw a space photograph with a UFO on it, and a technician was airbrushing it out prior to public release.

2. She was told (and clearly believed) that all space flights were followed by UFOs but astronauts were sworn to secrecy and threatened with grave punishments if they revealed it.

3. She was told (and clearly believed) that there were space photos showing a cattle mutilation in progress by a UFO, with cattle in the field standing with their tails straight up in alarm.

4. She was told (and clearly believed) that UFOs had been responsible for crippling the Apollo-13 spacecraft, so as to prevent it from reaching its intended landing area on the back side of the Moon -- but then, the UFOs had further interfered by aiding the doomed spaceship and making it possible for it to return safely to Earth.


I cannot believe the first item, the only one of the four to which she was a direct witness, because she described the photograph as showing trees and their shadows, which allowed her to determine the low altitude of the white circle she saw (and which she described as "a metallic disk") from its shadow on the ground.

From what I know of NASA space photography, I believe it was impossible then or now for NASA to produce Earth surface images with sufficient detail to show a tree and its shadow. A vigorous search by several UFO buffs recently for such pictures in NASA's archives (the photo was described as being prepared for public sale) failed to locate any.

Veteran NASA earth photography specialist Paul Lowman confirmed this for me: “Your term ‘preposterous’ is right on. The original Landsats had a ground resolution of 79 meters; Landsats 4 and 5 did better than that, around 30 meters or so. The Skylab S190B camera (18" focal length) could resolve small boats in marinas on the Chicago lake front, and I think a 10 meter resolution would account for that. But no NASA satellite of that era, or for that matter of any era up to now, could resolve pine trees or their shadows.”

Ms. Hare then retorted that of course NASA had such pictures: "We not only had the technology to see a number on a golf ball back then, we used it in the Bay of Pigs -- remember? -- to see Cuban/Russian missiles aimed at our country." (email, March 25, 1999) Aside from a confusion of the Bay of Pigs with the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the use at that time of U-2 spy planes, not satellites, the additional confusion of what super-secret military spy satellites could see and what NASA was interested in and had in its possession, gives me additional confidence that my disbelief in this story is logical.

On March 23, 1999, Ms. Hare restated her experience: “I worked in the Nasa photo lab. I saw a satellite picture of the Earth, and flying over the top of a tree covered field was a round metal disk. Both the trees and the UFO cast shadows in the same directions giving me an understanding of the shape and size of the object. I was told by the photo lab tech the UFO would be airbrushed out before the public would see those pictures. I will swear to this in any court of law. I have absolutely no reason to lie or deceive anyone about my experience. I swore about my experience at NASA before Congress, and if I were lying I could be placed in jail.” Of course, there was no way to tell if a white dot was ‘metal’, and also there is no law that would put her in jail for ‘lying’ about it, and she did NOT swear about her experience before Congress - all of these are non-factual elaborations of her original story.

Nor can I believe the claim about all astronauts seeing UFOs and being ordered to cover it up. Aside from my personal research into these bogus and confused stories there is the testimony of Apollo-14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell, a former supporter of Dr. Greer's efforts to dig into this mystery. Mitchell has said that these astronaut UFO stories are fiction, are untrue. Dr. Greer cannot expect us to believe both Ms. Hare's claims and Dr. Mitchell's utterly contrary assurances simultaneously. And by the way, Apollo-13 wasn't headed for the back side of the Moon after all -- somebody with a good grounding in the reality of space flight would have known that and might have been embarrassed to repeat it.

Other claims from Ms. Hare involve coverup activities such as threats to astronauts who have seen UFOs, and the total disappearance of one man who had disclosed space UFO material to her. Unfortunately Ms. Hare has not identified that ‘disappeared’ man so that researchers can verify he has really vanished, or ever even existed.

Assuming Ms. Hare’s description of the comments to her are accurate, is there any possible prosaic explanation why men should tell her ‘UFO stories’? One fact (found via Internet search engines) which may help in formulating a hypothesis is that she (under the name Donna Tietze) was on public record as a UFO contactee counselor during the same period she was allegedly being told these stories. She was a Texas ‘Associate Director’ of the ‘UFO Contact Center International (UFOCCI)’, a group that described itself in 1981 as “a non-profit organization dedicated to helping people who have had traumatic, bizarre experiences or sightings of UFOs. A secondary goal of UFOCCI is to promote public awareness of the UFO contactee phenomenon. UFOCCI works with each contactee to help them understand their experiences via hypnosis, group meetings and open seminars. Each year, over the Labor Day weekend, UFOCCI conducts a conference called "Jorpah" (which means 'Cosmic Gathering') in which the past year's activities are summed up and discussed. These gatherings are held at different places throughout the country. The date and time of these conferences are announced in The "Missing Link" newsletter.”

Further, according to a published report of the STAR KNOWLEDGE CONFERENCE in Sedona, Arizona, in 1999, “Donna Tietze Hare, spoke about having an extraterrestrial encounter at age 25, which altered her consciousness about the cosmos. Perhaps as a consequence of that encounter, she then worked at Johnson Space Center, Houston for NASA.”

One might hypothesize that her views, which she had no reason to hide while working at NASA, would be well known, and that people around her would realize she enjoyed UFO stories of any kind. Their motives could have been kindness, or teasing, or a desire to ingratiate themselves for personal reasons, or many alternate possibilities. The need for any such stories to be true was very low.


[edit on 15-9-2009 by JimOberg]

Has any NASA spokesperson ever responded to to queries about these airbrushed Moon photographs? In fact has the question ever been put to them?

[edit on 15-9-2009 by John Nada]

reply to post by John Nada


I don't know about this lady's claims, but regarding the image in the OP if you know the coordinates or the name of the feature, then the first step to do would be this one:
www.nrl.navy.mil...
There MUST be some reason if one is dubbed 1.5 and the other one is 2.0, right? But someone keeps using that ol' version.
That one can be called "the Moon for Dummies": it's some beta version the one i've just linked, but 2.0 is more advanced than the one posted in the OP.
In order to take some closer look at something on the moon you need two values: Long.
an Lat. A serious view can be found here:

www.mapaplanet.org...

Greyscale Image V2

Greyscale Image

"Natural" Color

False color

Enhanced color


And the source IS the same:

It would be NICE to know what we are looking at every now and then, wouldn't it?
In my opinion, the woman's words have been misunderstood, and the pic in the OP is some clementine 1.5 image-browser picture, result of some stitching work or something else but definatel far away from the appearance of the raw image: ArMaP kindly took the time to retrieve all the original images, and in no one of them there was any mark of airbrushing. The raw images are available for everyone.


[edit on 15/9/2009 by internos]

Originally posted by John Nada
Has any NASA spokesperson ever responded to to queries about these airbrushed Moon photographs? In fact has the question ever been put to them?

Where did she say there were airbrushed moon photos? Read her words carefully. She was referring to photographs of the Earth being processed for public sale.

My challenge to people who believe her is simple -- and has never been answered.

If such photos had sufficient resolution to show trees and their shadows -- AS SHE CLAIMED -- then find me a single case of any other released/sold NASA earth surface photos of that era that also showed trees (or any kind) and their shadows.

Over the last eight years this challenge has been in effect, a lot of bold talk from believers has been followed, in every case, by preposterous ad hoc excuses of why such photos cannot be found.

There's another possible explanation: such photos never existed at all.

Originally posted by internos
ArMaP kindly took the time to retrieve all the original images, and in no one of them there was any mark of airbrushing. The raw images are available for everyone.

Ah, I see. So the question hasn't been asked as there's nothing to ask, thanks for doing the research so I don't have to.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Where did she say there were airbrushed moon photos? Read her words carefully. She was referring to photographs of the Earth being processed for public sale.

My bad, I was responding to the topic title rather than the article.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by John Nada]

Originally posted by nomadros
The only thing I know is this.... I bought a copy of the UK Sunday Times some years ago which had a feature on Mars in it and inside was a double page picture of the Martian landscape from some lander or other. OK not the moon but...

I was just looking at it and then I noticed that certain rock formations had been repeated. If I remember there were about 4 sets of rocks that had been cut'n'pasted into other areas of the picture. Now this was before I thought anything about AboveTopsecret etc. It wasn't as if the rocks in question were far away and someone had helpfully done the dead to remove picture artifacts. It did strike me as very odd at the time. I don't have the picture anymore, but a search of back issues of the Sunday Times should be able to track it down.

All respect to Phage, but I came to the conclusion that "this was a crock of...." without any prompting, so Moon tampering would not surprise me.

Magazines alter content of photos all the time to "enhance" them. Remember the Obama swimsuit photo controversy [they changed the color of his trunks]? Models get airbrushed, backgrounds changed, images reversed [McCartney left handed guitar conspiracy]. The editors probably thought the Martian panorama wasn't interesting enough, so they made it a bit rockier.

That picture is definately not airbrushed. That's the most ridicilous thing I've heard from the moon conspiracy growd. Even a half-brained editor could airbrush something so you wouldn't see it untill you go trough image analysis in debth. It wouldn't be a clearly visible square.

reply to post by nomadros


Panoramic composite? They have to repeat feature to stich them up seamlisly.

Does this image look like it has had airbrushing done to it?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b9b46ff52744.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/df99a0905b22.jpg[/atsimg]

Are these the tell-tale signs of an airbrusher at work?








[edit on 15-9-2009 by Exuberant1]

No, looks like a kid with photoshop? Source please?

If Man was capable of space flight in the distant past then the moon would be a great place to leave a mark. IF man is using the moon now for space weapons and surveillance then the moon would also be a great place but if aliens have or is visiting the earth, again, the moon would be an ideal place to leave a mark for humans ensuring the information they find will be when man has reached the space age.......again.:

Originally posted by JimOberg
My challenge to people who believe her is simple -- and has never been answered.

I think it's possible to believe her and you answered how that's possible here:

Originally posted by JimOberg
One might hypothesize that her views, which she had no reason to hide while working at NASA, would be well known, and that people around her would realize she enjoyed UFO stories of any kind. Their motives could have been kindness, or teasing, or a desire to ingratiate themselves for personal reasons, or many alternate possibilities. The need for any such stories to be true was very low.

So perhaps it's possible that some unnamed source showed her a photo that could have been made by an airplane but he told her it was a NASA photo, when in fact it wasn't. And the unnamed source was teasing her or whatever about the airbrushing. So it's possible she could be telling the truth about what somebody told her, and all the lies and fabrications were made by her source and not her. When the source is not named it's conveniently impossible to verify the source.

But after reading about her other name and history in your post, her credibility goes way down so I'm finding myself a lot more skeptical about what she says, and wondering if she's distorting or embellishing what someone told her if not just making it up completely.

Do you know what happens to NASA employes who tell secrets? They get FIRED. That's probably why this woman waited untill she left nasa to speak out.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Chovy]

Originally posted by Chovy
Do you know what happens to NASA employes who tell secrets? They get FIRED. That's probably why this woman waited untill she left nasa to speak out.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Chovy]

Got any examples we can independently verify, or is this just something you like to believe?

And while you're collecting the evidence to show us, keep an eye out for any -- a SINGLE example will do -- NASA commercially released earth surface images in the 1980s that showed trees and their shadows. ANY example.

I do concur with an earlier post that Donna could be the victim of somebody else's cruel prank. I have no reason to think she is making any of this up deliberately.



[edit on 15-9-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by Chovy
A NASA employee admits she airbrushed photos and still you deny a conspiracy. I can't help you man.

Well you asked me to pop over... but you may be sorry

One of the biggest problems we face in this research is a continuous stream of misrepresentation and mixing of facts with BS... as in this case...

Originally posted by jd140

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Chovy

 

Please provide a quote in which Hare says she airbrushed NASA photographs.

That would be useful, all this is some guy who said that she said this.

I would like to see an actual interview with Donna Hare stating this.

Jeff Ritzmann and Wes Owsley mention that in this interview... that they think she was employed in the actual air brushing...

Wes Owsley Challenges the Secret Space Program
paratopia.podbean.com...

Who the heck is this 'Wes Owsley' what are his credentials and what the heck is an 'x-NASA SysAdmin for Russia' anyway

But she never said it... she said some one showed her pictures and that they 'always' airbrushed UFO's

The image in the OP is used on that video in the part where Sgt Wolf talks about the Moon base... He says he was working at Langly and saw the images in 1965 when Lunar Orbiter did not go to the moon until 1966-67

The images were NOT in the original Disclosure project interview and were edited in later by the person who made that video... the Image of the tower 'airbrushed' is indeed from Clementine which was flown in 1994 by the US NAVY and not NASA...

It was all covered here
alien bases disclosure
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is my post on that with the data on where to find that Clementine picture with the tower... just follow the detailed selection instructions I provided (That NAVY server is finicky )

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The reason the OP video was pulled is because of copy right issues...

Here is the original video and her original statement in the opening with an image related to her statement... this also has the Wolf story where he talks about his experience at Langley one year before the spacecraft flew and about 35 mm negatives that he saw when LO negatives were 70mm and crashed on the moon... The scans were processed onto 16" x20" sheet negatives not 35mm I know I have some of the real ones.

The images were added by Jose Escamilla to illustrate the interviews as there were none in the original



So while she in fact may be telling the truth, having it mixed with obvious lies and misrepresentation of images makes it impossible to separate fact from fiction...

We emailed Greer to have Wolf explain his 'error' but several attempts by several people were ignored




[edit on 15-9-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by JimOberg


Hi Jim

I just listened to that Wes Owsley interview on Ritzmann's podcas this morning... He is not very 'supportive' of you Do you have any info on this guy? Unlike you, I cannot find out anything about this guy or his job description. Even Clark is easier to trace

There is a thread on it here though the OP neglected to provide a link

Wes Owsley discusses NASA and UFOs
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I would appreciate your input...

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by JimOberg


Hi Jim

I just listened to that Wes Owsley interview on Ritzmann's podcas this morning... He is not very 'supportive' of you

Do you have any info on this guy? Unlike you, I cannot find out anything about this guy or his job description. Even Clark is easier to trace

There is a thread on it here though the OP neglected to provide a link

Wes Owsley discusses NASA and UFOs
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I would appreciate your input...

Zorgon, as always, you provide fascinating links... and I'll follow up in a few days when a paying contract, and out-of-town guests, have all been wrapped up.