NASA Employed Photo Artists to Airbrush Lunar Anomolies

reply to post by Phage


Please post another example where this has happened.

Surely you can do that.

reply to post by Exuberant1


In my comments I should have stuck to talking about lunar images and not include Martian images as I have no experience with Martian images as I have with lunar images. I'll admit that I've seen a lot of Martian images that make one think about the content but I don't think that any of the photos I've seen have fallen prey to any airbrushing. NASA puts out Martian photos without seemingly being aware of what they contain or if they are aware they don't care. I think the best anomaly found in a Martian photo is the one that looks like a wood beam because it's close to the camera.

Originally posted by ArbitrageurIf 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!

Well NASA has had more missions to practice on. Clementine was the first mission that the NAVY had to play with.

But hey as Phage stated... they fixed those images up for V 2.0... eliminated all those horrible first attempts and did a better job for the second version...

Makes sense to me Had time to do it right

On the prior sol (167) from the left camera:
marsrover.nasa.gov...
From the right camera:
marsrover.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Phage



Seems the algorithm program had a glitch for one 'eye'

Probably why U of Cambridge uploaded new software

reply to post by Phage


Nice Try Phage...

A camera does not insert artificial skylines in the manner which is apparent in these images.

These images were altered.

You asked for another example. I gave it to you and you nip at my ankles.

Altered? What's the point when the full image is available on the same website?
A more accurate term would be data loss but since the data is available from another image it's irrelevant.


[edit on 9/18/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage

You asked for another example. I gave it to you and you nip at my ankles.

Altered? What's the point when the full image is available on the same website?
A more accurate term would be data loss but since the data is available from another image it's irrelevant.

I agree with Phage. The 'horizon' is as phony as a $3 bill, it's jagged in a way no other view of any other martian horizon ever has been -- so to me, it doesn't have any evidence it was 'intended' to look like a fake horizon. More likely a data dropout of some kind...

Originally posted by JimOberg

More likely a data dropout of some kind...

Indeed.

...Perhaps what we are seeing in these images is resultant from some sort of algorithm designed for such incidents where a 'data dropout' such as this may be required.

Strange how these images have it occur in such a manner so as to create what looks like a skyline whilst omitting large portion of the image data. (I have yet to see this so occur on the sides or the bottom of the image...)

*Jim, would you say that this data dropout is likely to have originated with the rover? or perhaps the odds are greater that it was incurred at some other point along the way?

In terms of plausible deniability, it would make some sense to have such an algorithm alter the images before transmitting them to be viewed by personnel who lack the proper clearance to see such things (as would be apparent in the complete image). This would afford some manner of protection to many of those involved and that is something I can definitely appreciate.


P.S. Thanks for your efforts in vetting Mr. Owsley in the other thread. It is very much appreciated. Good Stuff.




[edit on 18-9-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Chovy
Former NASA employee, Donna Hare, reveals how NASA managed to cover up and erase anomalies such as UFOs from satellite photos.

Donna Hare has spent most of her professional life involved in the Space Program as a technical illustrator. She drew lunar maps, landing slides and worked in the photo lab, Precision Slide Lab. Her job was to reduce art work to one inch by one inch drawings. She drew launch sites, landing sites and was employed as a sub-contractor to NASA for over 15 years.

did they make copies of the original material before erasing the object from the images ?

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by ArbitrageurIf 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!

Well NASA has had more missions to practice on. Clementine was the first mission that the NAVY had to play with.

But hey as Phage stated... they fixed those images up for V 2.0... eliminated all those horrible first attempts and did a better job for the second version...

Makes sense to me

Had time to do it right

Thank you Zorgon.

If you want to come up with a conspiracy theory, at least part of that one makes a little sense. The theory that the images in 2.0 look more realistic would at least have some credibility.

However the theory that anyone NASA would hire to do airbrushing would ever do as bad a job as the Clementine 1.5 image in the OP is ludicrous and makes no sense.

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by Phage

 

Seems the algorithm program had a glitch for one 'eye'

Probably why U of Cambridge uploaded new software

The term "glitch" is what came to my mind also. So did the new software they uploaded fix the glitch?

@Exubie I still don't see why you care so much about this since you have a complete image from the other camera? What's your point? Do you think they showed us a good image and then showed us an incomplete image for some purpose? Other than a glitch? I guess I don't even understand what your theory is. If they never released the complete photo I could understand your fascination with this, but with the complete photo at your disposal, I'm not following your train of thought.

Going back to the sat image thing to wrap it up as promised - it looks like the actual time period when this event allegedly occurred would have been 70-71. (Based on quotes by Donna regarding when she was employed in that location).

The Earth sats during that time period overlapped - if we were to go from the first kh4 coronoa, kh5 argon and so on to 77 we'd have pretty much the full range ending with some of the first keyhole 11 to choose from (We skip 10 as it was the manned version which is said to have been canceled).

The example image I posted is probably the worst example I can find, here's a corona 4 from the same time period (66-70) which is much clearer:

There are clearly visible trees in the green strip between the far left taxi-way and a road. The shadows are just barely visible, running from top towards bottom as if the photo was taken around noon.

The birds had a variable depth in some cases, we have corona (kh4) photos with better resolution than this argon (kh5) shot of the Florida peninsula:



As you know they would create huge slides of the photo runs and use magnifiers so we don't even know what the actual source format should be from her allegation. Was it a large format original or a scaled print?

A better question, IMO is why would NASA be preparing prints of keyhole imagery for sale to the public during that time period? Were the kh4 images from the early sixties declassified and offered for public sale by NASA in 1971? That's where I have doubts about her statement. Not that she's lying but that her statement is not correct in context and maybe it could have been explained better. Maybe the photos for public sale and the sat photos were not related other than being airbrushed, the only reason for doing so I can think of would be the distribution of sat imagery within the government in some way.

Here's the source site anyway, you can find a lot of great examples of sat imagery there from that time period, some with really nice resolution but I'm not going to invest more time than I already have on it as I really don't see it changing Jim's position beyond perhaps shifting the argument to a different angle.
FAS

As to the Gary vs/ Donna Hare folder structure thing - other interviews with Gary change the context of that statement to where it can be understood as him saying his discovery of the pre and post edit folders validated her claim without specific reference that she described those same folders. With the context of his statement shifting in that regard it's not worth pursuing, IMO. I don't' feel that it really changes anything or matters though and again, it's not going to change Jim's opinion on the matter regardless.

I took on these various issues in this discussion based on my recollection of previous reading and viewing. I don't mean this to seem rude but I am surprised that Jim was basing his debunking of these things based on a lack of familiarization with the actual quotes and so on. I'm not trying to provoke Jim by saying that I just kind of expected more is the best way to say it. I expected such a strong indictment of these claims to be based on an absolutely solid review of the material in question.

Hopefully we've clarified some of the quotes and statements involved and hopefully the sat imagery will help to dispel what I consider to be incorrect information as to the resolution and capabilities of the hardware of that time.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by ecoparity]

[edit on 18-9-2009 by ecoparity]

Originally posted by ecoparity

A better question, IMO is why would NASA be preparing prints of keyhole imagery for sale to the public during that time period? Were the kh4 images from the early sixties declassified and offered for public sale by NASA in 1971? That's where I have doubts about her statement. Not that she's lying but that her statement is not correct in context and maybe it could have been explained better. Maybe the photos for public sale and the sat photos were not related other than being airbrushed, the only reason for doing so I can think of would be the distribution of sat imagery within the government in some way.

I agree this is the core of the question -- is it possible that NASA offices at the 'SECRET' level were processing NRO Keyhole imagery for public release in the earky 1970's. And I think the answer has to be NO, there's no reason NASA would be involved (it was processing LANDSAT earth surface photography for release in that period), nor even have the security zones capable of handling the Keyhole products... so Hare would have been unable to get in to see them. The custodial capabilities at NASA in this period, especially building 8, were nowhere near the statutory protective levels required for KH products. They were guarded at NPIC in Anacostia (not far from where I worked for DODCI in 1972-5), and I can think of no reason for ever passing any of them in any form to NASA's much looser security control.

Besides, although there are numerous examples of NASA-released LANSAT imagery, there's never been a single case found of their releasing the postulated 'processed Keyhole imagery'.

That leads to the conclusion that any imagery Hare would have seen would have been LANDSAT imagery, which does not show trees and shadows [its resolution is on the order of 100 meters]. How she came to believe that such was what she had seen, I offer no explanation.

I found some more testimony from Donna

Donna Hare had a secret clearance while working for NASA contractor,
Philco Ford. She testifies that she was shown a photo of a picture with a
distinct UFO. Her colleague explained that it was his job to airbrush such
evidence of UFOs out of photographs before they were released to the
public.

source

reply to post by Chovy

That's not more. That's what she says in the interview and in the video.

That's evidence for me.

reply to post by Chovy

The more something is repeated, the truer it is?
Interesting thought process.

Like it or not Jim puts the point on the issue I was curious about. The sat image she described almost certainly would not have been at NASA for public sale. It just doesn't work in that context.

I still find her credible I just think she either could not explain fully what she was seeing and / or did not relate the incident in a clear manner.

The only explanations I can think of involve bringing data into the equation that was not part of her testimony which isn't useful as "proof". It would be considered hearsay.

That theory would be along the lines of - "if" NASA is involved in a mechanism of cover up as it relates to UFOs then maybe keyhole images which captured them were sent to NASA for study, archiving, etc. If we did capture UFOs on keyhole it would make sense that at least a few space science folks would be tasked with examining them to gain any possible understanding of the technology possible. If this building 8 facility was tasked with storing all NASA imagery of this nature then it might make sense for any keyhole images sent to them for study would also be stored there. The alleged quote about airbrushing photos prior to public sale might have been completely unrelated to the sat image she claimed to see.

Even in that scenario the point about the security level of the facility is a good one, IMO. While it's possible to have a higher security containment area in a lesser security level exterior I wouldn't know the first thing to do about verifying that one.

I'd have to check some Landsat imagery from the time period to rule it completely out but going from memory it would have had a resolution far worse than even the most zoomed out keyhole image I can find. Are we talking about one of these multi-mile wide UFOs?

I guess where I differ from the skeptics on this is that I come out of it with a verdict of "inconclusive". I don't find the witness to be "unbelievable", her story has been consistent over time and though I have some issues with elements of it I was able to find that other elements might fit. Without being able to verify the security architecture and any programs under which keyhole imagery might have been sent to NASA I can't really reach a solid conclusion either way. As usual I've ended up with more questions in exchange for a few possible answers, a typical dilemma with UFO stories. If there was even one corroborating witness from NASA I'd feel much stronger about the case.

I don't want to stay up past my bedtime and start confusing LRO with Clementine again and other serious issues so I'm going to leave it there and get some sleep.

Originally posted by Phage
The more something is repeated, the truer it is?
Interesting thought process.

That is as old as the hills... the more it's believed, it becomes reality... it's supposed to work the other way too...

If no one believes you exist... you will just go 'poof'

Take a good look at the MRO photos of Phobos too see a photoshop substrate! There all painted fakes! There more Faker than Pamela Anderson's Boobs!