Have You Ever Wondered Where The Stars Went? Proof that NASA has altered their images

Originally posted by ArMaP
I don't see why they did it, unless they added something before and had to remove it.

Thanks for doing the animation, I was looking in the footpath closer to the camera and didn't see it but I guess he meant the other camera (I didn't know that's another camera) I see it now.

Good find guys, you have to wonder why they altered this frame, there doesn't appear to be any obvious reason.

reply to post by menguard


Did you read my post?

There is no metallic craft, it's a picture of the EARTH from the moon taken with a UV long exposure camera by the Apollo 16 crew. They had to have special cameras to be able to capture the stars.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Originally posted by KILL_DOGG
The only thing that this proves is that photoshop was a great program that they didn't have back then.

This is one of the problems I have with fixed minded individuals like yourself how do you know without any element of doubt that programmes like Photshop did not exist. Lets not forget the HUGE amount of money this government organisation receives each year. How do you know without any doubt in that they do not posess some fantastic futuristic technology and that year by year they leak it out in order to advance our civilisation ?

The truth is you can't nobody can, therefore, we have to ask questions and do our research and try to make sense of it all.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Good find guys, you have to wonder why they altered this frame, there doesn't appear to be any obvious reason.

Indeed, now we have established that NASA does alter their images we have to keep asking this question? why change a frame or 2 to make an extremely subtle difference?

Obviously, conspiracist are going to cry foul and with good reason, why would a multi million dollar company, lets face it, NASA is more than a government organisaton its a law unto themselves. Why would the deem it necessary to alter the images?

Originally posted by ReelView
There are dozens and dozens of serious and real anomalies. "Smoking guns" are real and all over the place. Don't be fooled or intimidated with the idea they don't amount to anything. They clearly show extensive lies and manipulations. Exactly why the where done as they where is a mystery.

ReelView, once upon a time I thought like yourself, obviously I still do to an extent but, where are the smoking guns? looking at this subject logically and consulting the facts, it appears that there isn't as many smoking guns as everyone makes out ifso where are they?

Please come in and join us in our discussion and provide us with some examples of what you think is conclusive proof that NASA alter their images in order to hide something from the public.

At least we can now agree that NASA does alter their images, so we are making a little headway don't you think?

reply to post by franspeakfree

.....programmes like Photshop did not exist. Lets not forget the HUGE amount of money this government organisation receives each year.

Might I interject, here??? (again)...

We must ALL recall that 'Photoshop' did NOT EXIST until sometime in the last decade, or so....!!!!

I don't know how old any recent 'posters' are....but I am WELL over 50 years of age.

Allow me to put this into perspective, for younger readers....

I WAS 12 YEARS OLD, and SAW Apollo 11, LIVE on my TV, back in 1969!!!!

THINK about this, for a moment, OK?

1969....I was living, then in Los Angeles, California, where I grew up (obviously).

We had, back then SIX channels!!!!!

2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13!!!

THOSE were the 'VHF' channels, that a TV of that era could tune in....we had no 'cable', and certainly no 'Satellite' feeds availableidrect ot our homes....the only OTHE channels were UHF!!!!! On those (Channel '28', for instance, in LA) I used to watch BBC programs.....tyhose were (and sitll are 'Public Television'....where you found "Sesame Street", and whatnot.....

Compare to the things we are used today, IF you subscribe to a Cable or Satellite TV service....

Get a grip!!!! And try to remember what it was LIKE, just two or three decades ago, compared to the lovely and full experience you all have at your fingertips, nowadays.....

reply to post by franspeakfree

I think it's unlikely that NASA had something like Photoshop when those photos were taken, and even if they had, Photoshop is only good for digital material, and that means that they would need high quality scanners, some Photoshop-like program running on what would have to be the fastest computer in the world and a very high quality printer to pass from digital to analogue once more.

But if we think only of digital copies then can you tell me when did NASA put those images on the publicly accessible Internet? Was it before or after Photoshop was available?

And you don't need Photoshop to change photos, any real photography technician can work directly on a positive or negative and change it beyond recognition, it's only a matter of time available for that task.


About the changed photos, I would like to add that I have never seen an altered photo on the science-oriented NASA sites, only on those for the common public.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
In any case whether McDivitt photographed a secret defense satellite or not, if some astronaut did that, I could understand why NASA wouldn't release the photos.

But if you can shed some light on whether UFO hunters is misrepresenting McDivitt or not, that would be interesting to know.

In 1975-6 or so I went over the GT-4 flight film with Dick Underwood, chief of the astronaut imagery archives in Bldg 8. All the shots were on the rolls, the numbering on the negatives was uninterrupted, nothing looked like a satellite or artifact of any kind. The evidence I saw indicated to me that NO images of that mission had been surreptitiously removed.

Now, Gemini-5 did carry a camera for a DoD experiment and that film was in fact grabbed by a DoD rep on the recovery carrier. That made quite a story, if you believe Gordon Cooper -- but Underwood helped me track that down as well.

What a difference 24 hours makes!

NASA have removed the 'cloned' image that I originally posted and have replaced it with a different version. The image now appears on the last page of the Apollo 11 gallery, indicating it is a new addition.
Apollo 11 gallery (last page)

Anybody reading my first post about this will now say 'what cloning?'.
I don't know why or when they pulled it, but it's a bit coincidental that they did when we started analysing it here at ATS??
Are NASA spies here LOL!?

The file hashes for the original photo (s69_40308.jpg) I referenced were:
CRC32: 2E1C5E4A
MD5: AA96F005960FAF0E48FE0AD1016BDC4F
SHA-1: 5BACF09AE500F4433BB2E24C0191691859A18E2D

The hashes now read:
CRC32: 1D04F922
MD5: 9D8B8E1F713B372E8A4E8E190B731CEA
SHA-1: DE93F4E92A2659CE14C26B11D1FAFAAE3D5C030F

Absolutely a different file!

ArMaP, looking at your two-step animation I guess you downloaded the image I originally referenced. You may want to keep hold of that. I accidentally deleted mine.

The plot thickens

Edit: It's a good thing the Net doesn't forget. The NASA file (s69_40308.jpg) with the original hash checks exists in several places on the Net. You can't hide that NASA.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by DrBunsen]

reply to post by DrBunsen

I guess there were a bunch of hits on the image from ATS. Caught their attention.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Oh dear oh dear, what it must be like for you to believe you know everything and that the people who really control this world are just illusions cast in the minds of the deranged.

May I take you to here en.wikipedia.org... take a long look at the dates. Are you honestly telling me that, for one example, that J.P.Morgan told Nicola Tesla to dismantle his wireless electric machine and never spoke another word about it?

It is well known in history that Nicola Teslas papers were confiscated by the powers of this world, you can't possibly suggest that they didn't want to use any of the ideas for their own gain so they put them away until 80/90 years later.

The truth is and it is the truth you and I cannot say for certain that any of this happened. I can quite easily, based on facts and research say that people in power have manipulated people in order to achieve their own agendas, this is a fact, therefore, if we keep an open mind about this its very easy to theorise that 'they' would never share the technology with us unless they got something out of it.

My mind is open I take any information and process it through facts and research, your mind (considering your posts that I have read) is shut to any new possible theories therefore, it doesn't matter what I or anyone else says nothing will change in your mind.

I can admit when I am wrong I learn from my experiences and build on this, your mind is shut and therefore, your ideas and understanding will never change, and one day you will come on to this site and everything would have changed and you will still be stuck to your rigid ideology of life, its make me sad for you.

Interesting video thank you for posting it. Makes one wonder what the motives are behind the editing.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by DrBunsen

 

I guess there were a bunch of hits on the image from ATS. Caught their attention.

Or a possibility that someone on this site let them know of their mistakes? its a possibility is it not?

Originally posted by franspeakfree

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Good find guys, you have to wonder why they altered this frame, there doesn't appear to be any obvious reason.

Indeed, now we have established that NASA does alter their images we have to keep asking this question? why change a frame or 2 to make an extremely subtle difference?

Obviously, conspiracist are going to cry foul and with good reason, why would a multi million dollar company, lets face it, NASA is more than a government organisaton its a law unto themselves. Why would the deem it necessary to alter the images?

Actually that's the first time I've seen a NASA altered image on a NASA website where the alteration was more than just brightness, contrast, and hue, they actually did replace some pixels, it's apparent. All the other photos I've seen with the actual content altered like this came off non-NASA sites.

As for the conspiracists crying foul, I see this example as a double edged sword for them. Yes it proved the photo was altered, however we can also see adjacent frames that shows the site itself is unremarkable, and apparently it's only one frame from a movie altered and the rest of the movie is intact. So it's really questionable if it shows much of a conspiracy.

And another point, this really is such a shoddy job of editing, it's like they didn't even try to hide it, I think if they hired me to edit the photo I could have done a better job and I'm no pro. So I would say if there really was a conspiracy and NASA was trying to hide something, they could do a better job than this. I've made the same argument over those ridiculous browser artifacts where people thought NASA was hiding something.

However I must admit I'm curious why they edited this photo. Maybe a moon pigeon flew through the frame and they edited that out? But there are so many other frames that seem fine why wouldn't they just use another frame? It really doesn't make much sense. Oh well it's one of those mysteries that makes life interesting. But hardly a smoking gun for conspiracy theorists given the rest of the movie available.

reply to post by JimOberg


Please read this thread of mine Jim, Do you know what I did yesterday?

Just because you were a part of the organisation does not mean that you were 'part' of the organisation.

I work in a massive building with many different companies, in each company there are many many departments, each department has many sections with many people in each sector. None of know what each sector is doing, we just concentrate on the work given to us that day.

Nobody knows for sure whats really going on in this world including yourself, even you have to admit that. Theres no shame in it thats the way it works, we can only speculate and try to understand it the best we can.

Originally posted by DrBunsen
What a difference 24 hours makes!

NASA have removed the 'cloned' image that I originally posted and have replaced it with a different version. The image now appears on the last page of the Apollo 11 gallery, indicating it is a new addition.
Apollo 11 gallery (last page)

Anybody reading my first post about this will now say 'what cloning?'.
I don't know why or when they pulled it, but it's a bit coincidental that they did when we started analysing it here at ATS??
Are NASA spies here LOL!?

If they ask you "what cloning?", refer them to this post.

The image was still in my browser cache from earlier today, and as you said you can even see the cloning in the thumbnail so just to prove it was on a NASA site I'll post the way the page appeared from my browser cache:

spaceflight.nasa.gov...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7f1df59b0d3e.png[/atsimg]

This isn't the first time pictures disappeared from the NASA site when ATS posted about them, Zorgon mentioned it happened to him before too though that was before I joined ATS.

Edit to add URL for page capture.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by JimOberg
In 1975-6 or so I went over the GT-4 flight film with Dick Underwood, chief of the astronaut imagery archives in Bldg 8. All the shots were on the rolls, the numbering on the negatives was uninterrupted, nothing looked like a satellite or artifact of any kind. The evidence I saw indicated to me that NO images of that mission had been surreptitiously removed.

Thanks for the reply Jim, I assume that means the numbered negatives from the Hasselblad? But he said something about there being more images from the movie camera and they only released one frame from that, the movie frames aren't numbered, are they?

reply to post by franspeakfree

Could be I guess. Come on 'fess up. It was you wasn't it?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

If they ask you "what cloning?", refer them to this post.

The image was still in my browser cache from earlier today, and as you said you can even see the cloning in the thumbnail so just to prove it was on a NASA site I'll post the way the page appeared from my browser cache:

This isn't the first time pictures disappeared from the NASA site when ATS posted about them, Zorgon mentioned it happened to him before too though that was before I joined ATS.

Thanks Arbitrageur, that's much appreciated.
Didn't know it had happened before but it does not surprise me.
It was a real shock to look at my original post linking to the NASA gallery and to then see the image had been replaced and so quickly.

Were they embarrassed by the poor quality of it or did something enter that particular frame that they didn't want us to see? I dismiss the latter myself.

However, Google 's69_40308.jpg' as I did to find the original 'manipulated' image and a whole bunch of conspiracies pop up about there being a Coke bottle on that particular frame

Originally posted by DrBunsen
Anybody reading my first post about this will now say 'what cloning?'.
I don't know why or when they pulled it, but it's a bit coincidental that they did when we started analysing it here at ATS??
Are NASA spies here LOL!?

And it's not the first time either.

ArMaP, looking at your two-step animation I guess you downloaded the image I originally referenced. You may want to keep hold of that. I accidentally deleted mine.

Yes, I got it, I have learnt to always download the files that are talked about on ATS.

Edit: It's a good thing the Net doesn't forget. The NASA file (s69_40308.jpg) with the original hash checks exists in several places on the Net. You can't hide that NASA.

That's why I like the Internet Archive, you can see that that altered photo has been there at least since 2001.