Nasa doesn't photoshop??

originally posted by: jonnywhite

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.

Only the fastest of the government shills get their paycheck!

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

I understand your point, but that's not what I was talking about.

I never said or implied that the alterations I saw were meant to hide something or that there was no way of knowing if they were altered or not, I only said that NASA has been known to alter images, and that's a fact.

One of the things I have been saying in the 13 years I have been an ATS member is that we should always look for different sources, specially when we are discussing digital versions of physical photos or film. I also say (and proved it with a little experiment) that if anyone wants to hide something on a digital photo they can do it without anyone noticing, so pointing to half a dozen pixels and saying they are hiding something is ridiculous.

To me, the most important thing is, for cases like this, to understand how photography works, how digital images work and, in a wider reaching point of view, how to think about what we see and not accept things as presented just because someone says so, looking at things with a "critical eye" but without doubting just because we can, doubts, like opinions, should be based on facts and known data.

To conclude (and something that I have also said several times), although NASA has been known to alter images they post on their sites, I have never seen any image with signs of tampering in the science-related sites, only on the sites dedicated to the general public.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
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?

To me this is a greater mystery than whether or not we went to the moon.

Why is NASA altering images that have no apparent need for alteration?

If it was some kind of blemish, then at least there's an explanation for that, maybe a speck of dust or lint was on the image when it was scanned, and most people can understand how that can happen. But I don't think photoshopping the image to hide a blemish is a prudent thing to do, and if they had a better reason I wish they would have provided it.

The blemish idea doesn't seem to make much sense since the non-photoshopped image was apparently available for immediate replacement without any apparent blemishes, and as you have noted, there were alternate versions of the image available without the photoshop artifacts.

Lastly it doesn't help calm conspiracy theorists down by saying NASA isn't photoshopping images when they actually are photoshopping images, even if it's for unknown reasons, maybe especially when it's being done for unknown and unexplained reasons.

This topic is interesting. Folks come around to this question but often without seeing what has come before. There was a woman, can't remember her name, who came forth without provocation and stated clearly that she was employed within NASA to alter photos before they were released - this dates back about 15years. If I remember correctly she had a few examples and her level of alteration was low level to be sure. There have been others who have worked at NASA and have talked about having seen photos that were never released.

So. NASA employee states she herself altered images. So, which images have been altered and which ones not? If one image was done, logic dictates that ALL have been done since there is no way of know which were done and which ones not from our POV.

NASA withholds images. Since NASA has withheld images based on what is in the images, logic dictates NASA not only hides things, they have a very sophisticated system that determines what can be see and what cannot. So, NASA hides things and the reason is because you are not allowed to see everything, only what they want and what is that want criteria?

Lastly, a great poster here, again going way back, Zorgon, has/had done unreal verifiable research concerning they systems NASA uses to vet the photos they release. The net effect, if you see something from NASA - live feed (which is delayed) or other, they have decided through a very complicated system that you seeing it doesn't matter at all to them or, according to Zorgon research, systems run down the government food chain and through the vactican overlords.

There is long standing discussion, did we go to the moon or not? The problem is there is ONE, SINGULAR, ONE resource for that documentation and under the protective order of national and global security you are only allowed to see what several heavy hitters will allow you to see. Documentation is an odd thing, those who create the documentation have FULL and COMPLETE power over what you believe and in the case of NASA and who the NASA folks work for, you are not allowed to see any of the millions of gigabytes of data that have in their system because they say so.

Conclusion. NASA lies, so nothing can be seen as the truth since the bulk of what NASA has will never be shown. Ergo, nothing the say can really be believed without a true foundation, a foundation based on what those millions of gigabytes say...

originally posted by: crankyoldman
So. NASA employee states she herself altered images. So, which images have been altered and which ones not? If one image was done, logic dictates that ALL have been done since there is no way of know which were done and which ones not from our POV.

A supposed NASA employee saying something doesn't mean that something is true, that's why I think showing that NASA does change images is important, even if it's only to make "pretty pictures" for the masses.

NASA withholds images.

I haven't seen any real evidence of that.

Since NASA has withheld images based on what is in the images, logic dictates NASA not only hides things, they have a very sophisticated system that determines what can be see and what cannot. So, NASA hides things and the reason is because you are not allowed to see everything, only what they want and what is that want criteria?

No, even if NASA does withhold images that doesn't mean they have a sophisticated system that determines what can and cannot be seen. I am a programmer and I do not trust in decisions from automated systems, specially in a complex field as imaging, in which the way people interpret images is something really impossible to know.

Lastly, a great poster here, again going way back, Zorgon, has/had done unreal verifiable research concerning they systems NASA uses to vet the photos they release.

That research is far from conclusive, is more based on hypothesis than fact, at least from what I remember.

The net effect, if you see something from NASA - live feed (which is delayed) or other, they have decided through a very complicated system that you seeing it doesn't matter at all to them or, according to Zorgon research, systems run down the government food chain and through the vactican overlords.

I don't remember a thing about Vatican (I suppose that's what you meant) in Zorgon's research, and I read his site frequently.

Documentation is an odd thing, those who create the documentation have FULL and COMPLETE power over what you believe and in the case of NASA and who the NASA folks work for, you are not allowed to see any of the millions of gigabytes of data that have in their system because they say so.

That's not true, only you have full and complete power over what you believe. Other people can try to put things in your head, but you are the only one that controls your thoughts and beliefs.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hermann Rorschach selected the inkblots he would use with his patients, factors such as his youth may have biased the selection criteria in subtle ways.

Many of us on ATS have found images with potentially intentional artifacts and cataloging anomalies.
I'm not sure of Zorgon's background but he sure had an eye for those details..
So the purpose of these "anomolies" is still debateable.
What happened to Zorgon?

originally posted by: crankyoldman
This topic is interesting. Folks come around to this question but often without seeing what has come before. There was a woman, can't remember her name, who came forth without provocation and stated clearly that she was employed within NASA to alter photos before they were released - this dates back about 15years. If I remember correctly she had a few examples and her level of alteration was low level to be sure. There have been others who have worked at NASA and have talked about having seen photos that were never released.

So. NASA employee states she herself altered images. So, which images have been altered and which ones not? If one image was done, logic dictates that ALL have been done since there is no way of know which were done and which ones not from our POV.

There are a few of these individuals around, and I believe you are talking about Donna Hare. We have yet to see any evidence from her to back up her claims and her connection with NASA, as is usually the case with these people, is tenuous. Meanwhile thousands of people who actually do work for NASA, and other space agencies, are ignored.

NASA withholds images. Since NASA has withheld images based on what is in the images, logic dictates NASA not only hides things, they have a very sophisticated system that determines what can be see and what cannot. So, NASA hides things and the reason is because you are not allowed to see everything, only what they want and what is that want criteria?

This is a circular argument employed by conspiracy theorists all over the place:

1. I believe there are aliens here
2. NASA won't show me pictures of aliens here
3. NASA is hiding pictures of aliens.

The alternative conclusions is that there are no picture of aliens but this does not seem to occur to people. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Lastly, a great poster here, again going way back, Zorgon, has/had done unreal verifiable research concerning they systems NASA uses to vet the photos they release. The net effect, if you see something from NASA - live feed (which is delayed) or other, they have decided through a very complicated system that you seeing it doesn't matter at all to them or, according to Zorgon research, systems run down the government food chain and through the vactican overlords.

There is long standing discussion, did we go to the moon or not? The problem is there is ONE, SINGULAR, ONE resource for that documentation and under the protective order of national and global security you are only allowed to see what several heavy hitters will allow you to see. Documentation is an odd thing, those who create the documentation have FULL and COMPLETE power over what you believe and in the case of NASA and who the NASA folks work for, you are not allowed to see any of the millions of gigabytes of data that have in their system because they say so.

You actually have quite a lot of access to terabytes of data in a wide variety of places. Most people don't put much effort into finding it.

Conclusion. NASA lies, so nothing can be seen as the truth since the bulk of what NASA has will never be shown. Ergo, nothing the say can really be believed without a true foundation, a foundation based on what those millions of gigabytes say...

Your conclusion is that you believe NASA lies. You have no evidence of it, and your belief isn't supported by data from other sources.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
This is a circular argument employed by conspiracy theorists all over the place:

1. I believe there are aliens here
2. NASA won't show me pictures of aliens here
3. NASA is hiding pictures of aliens.

The alternative conclusions is that there are no picture of aliens but this does not seem to occur to people. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

(snip)

Your conclusion is that you believe NASA lies. You have no evidence of it, and your belief isn't supported by data from other sources.

Obviously, if a space photo does not show what they expect to see (or really, really want to see) it must therefore via petitio principii be fake. QED

Or, to put it more concisely,

Over the past 20 years, I have observed that prior to public release of NASA images photographers usually do some "spotting." That is they clean up any dust specks or small blemishes from the negative, or in the case of digital imagery any dead pixels or spots from dirty lenses. They do not do any major retouching.

In the case of images from planetary space probes, it is sometimes necessary to create a mosaic by stitching together multiple frames. There is nothing nefarious about this. It is simply the only way to produce a complete portrait of a planetary body or a panoramic view of a planet's surface. Unfortunately, this process sometimes results in artifacts that look like UFOS or obvious stitch lines that cause conspiracy theorists to say, "Look, this is proof that NASA is hiding/faking something!"

Then there is the problem of occasionally imperfect data transmission. Images sometimes have missing pixels or regions of corrupt data that appear as blurry rectilinear shapes. That is what causes conspiracists to declare, "NASA has blurred out the alien artifacts!" Really? You're saying that NASA has the power and authority to conceal proof of extraterrestrials but that they can't spend five minutes Photoshopping an image in a convincing and undetectable fashion? That's not logical or reasonable.

In my experience NASA retouches images only for the purpose of creating pretty pictures, not to hide secrets from the public.

Ive read a story seen pictures of a guy whom aliens took to mars let him take pictures saw a satallite in the 70s around mars with american flag on it. Also took him back in time photographed dinos.

a reply to: sean

If its been airbrushed you would be able to see it , it couldnt have been photoshopped , it didnt exist during apollo12
if it has been digitally maniuplated you'd see it in a digital forensic analysis

You can see here in the error level analysis , notice how the areas of high and low contrast are relatively the same over the areas you think have been manipulated, if they were manipulated you would see the difference in the contrast of the areas being edited

image forensics

You can read up more on Error Level Analysis and how it can be used to determine if an image has been digitally manipulated using compression analysis techniques

wow, solved on the first page yet here i am on page 4 lol

a reply to: sapien82

Error Level Analysis is good to highlight where an image was manipulated, but the fact that an image doesn't show any signs of tampering with Error Level Analysis doesn't mean it wasn't tampered with.

Just try to do an Error Level Analysis with the (obviously) manipulated image below.

a reply to: ArMaP

Aye agreed however the reason i brought it up is that its stage 1 for eliminating half of the worst photoshop jobs going.
Anyone who knows a bit about image compression and digitisation can avoid these give away errors!
I just think that so many people claim that an image has been manipulated but have never even bothered to do any ground work in terms of digital forensics to prove that they have.

a reply to: anotherside

was that George Adamski?

a reply to: sapien82

Another consequence of that is people saying that an image was altered when they see JPEG artefacts on a JPEG image.

originally posted by: toysforadults
There is a space program with people going to space.

Weather or not what the story we got from NASA with the moon landings is real or not is a different story.

Well, everyone talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it...or do they?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
....
There are a few of these individuals around, and I believe you are talking about Donna Hare. We have yet to see any evidence from her to back up her claims and her connection with NASA, as is usually the case with these people, is tenuous. Meanwhile thousands of people who actually do work for NASA, and other space agencies, are ignored.

....

That sounds right, but note how the story has evolved like a grade-school game of 'telephone'.

Hare first said she saw a man retouching a UFO out of a photo of trees o Earth's surface.

Years later, her story became she s people retouching lunar photos.

Years later, the original poster here says he heard her saying SHE had been doing the retouching.

A perfect example of how we get modern UFO myths.

Her ORIGINAL story collapses on irremediable technical flaws, described here.

www.jamesoberg.com...

a reply to: ArMaP

Aye exactly there are so many errors or bad processing techniques etc that can be eliminated straight of the jump if you know anything about image compression and different image file types and how they translate when being converted from their initial state to a .psd , or vector etc !

I think the community could do a lot to eliminate a lot of these images if they learned a little bit more about digital image manipulation .

Thanks
Nice to see you active in a thread , havent seen you post in a while but maybe Ive been reading sh1t threads on here and havent been around a mars or nasa thread in a while !

originally posted by: sean
Oh well off to the next one.

Obviously you have time to waste this subject has been done a million times on here but why dont you dive in here

Moon hoax theories debunked

672 pages of whack job theories re Nasa never going to the Moon, pictures being faked, shadow problem etc etc.

See you some time 2019