NASA Deletes Suspicious Photos From Archive

I have located a raw .psd file on a NASA FTP server. What's interesting is that the .psd is a image editing format commonly used by photo editing software such as Photoshop. The image in the file is a raw and unedited version of a Venera prode photo of the surface of Venus. It is a poor attempt to align two images, and was obviously not intended for public release. I have saved the .psd file and opened it in photoshop, then saved the image as a .jpg. I have also taken screenshots of everything for documentation.

There you have it...another smoking gun.

Here is a link to my research and findings: Project MAJI - NASA - Venera Probe Photoshop






[edit on 20-8-2010 by Thamelas]

reply to post by Thamelas


That's not a smoking gun, it's only proof that someone inside NASA uses Photoshop (other program that uses the same format).

Now, if you had found a PSD file, with several layers showing several stages of image tampering, that would be a smoking gun.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Thamelas

 

That's not a smoking gun, it's only proof that someone inside NASA uses Photoshop (other program that uses the same format).

Now, if you had found a PSD file, with several layers showing several stages of image tampering, that would be a smoking gun.

Um dude...that's exactly what this is. Its pretty obvious that this image was a layered image that was put together. You can see where they loosely tried to combine the images. The layers were combined into one layer, saved, and then probably forgotten. Don't be so quick to dismiss what is plainly stareing you in the face.



[edit on 20-8-2010 by Thamelas]

Originally posted by Thamelas
Um dude...that's exactly what this is. Its pretty obvious that this image was a layered image that was put together.

If it was a layered image, now is as much layered as a JPEG, so it cannot show several stages of image tampering, like a layer with just some rocks covering an originally different area, and that was what I was talking about.

You can see where they loosely tried to combine the images.

Yes, but as far as I know, making panoramas is not the same as image tampering.

The layers were combined into one layer, saved, and then probably forgotten.

What layers? That's the problem, you cannot know how many layers the image had before being "flattened", so this has as much value as a JPEG, it only shows a "flat" image, with no signs of tampering.

Don't be so quick to dismiss what is plainly stareing you in the face.

Don't be so quick to think that you have found a smoking gun when you only found just another image.

Yes, it's a PSD file, that means that someone, somewhere, used a image manipulation program to join two images, but what other methods could they use?

If this was an image that had cast some doubts about something, you could have something important, as it is, you just have an image in a different format.

What layers? Are you serious? How can you even ask that when it is blatantly obvious that the two images were being worked on. You can clearly see where the two photos are layered one over the other to create a panoramic. This is a raw image that obviously someone at NASA was working on and forgot about. The simple fact that this file even exists on a NASA server leads one to further consider the issues in the previous moon image, and the implications that it may entail: Gary McKinnon's reports of image processing, and the other NASA whistle blowers.

No offense, but I don't think you are seeing the proper implications of this. Instead I feel you are simply looking for a way to dismiss this.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Thamelas]

Oh look...The NASA site that had it seems to be down now. Isn't that amazing... :

No coincidence there at all...



[edit on 20-8-2010 by Thamelas]

I just wanted to say.

As a Multimedia Specialist who works with Photoshop, video, photography, etc. etc. etc. daily...

Editing images is common in all fields. Including news papers. I would say 90% of all images we see from NASA, CNN, US Govt, Russia, your college photos, etc.... are edited in photoshop or in photolabs (if it were actual footage.)

All the tools photoshop do (the base tools, IE: burning, dodging, blurring, cropping, copy/paste/planting items into photos/removing items, etc etc etc) can be done in a photolab by hand. I used to dodge and burn certain areas of my photo by blocking light to the paper with a metal wire and cardboard (dodging) or a cardboard piece with a single hole (burning).



We don't edit images to hide things, we edit images to correct things. If color is off, or if the image was to "light" and needs darker shadows (less exposure) - we edit those images to make them aesthetically pleasing.

The images NASA provides are still "public media" not scientific data. They will be edited to look their best when seen on computers. When film is scanned to a computer, it actually MOST of the time, does not look right. Most scanned film needs to be "patched up in photoshop" because of damaged areas on the film.

Sometimes it isn't damage but film irregularities... like with this one the thread is about. That "different coloring" on the edge? That could be a result of the film scanner or damaged film. Damaged areas that are missing data may get similar areas pasted over them - OR - pixalated color so on large prints you don't see a bright white scratch mark on the surface of the moon.

As for the Earth? It could be simple as someone did not save the image right. Realize that computers only display X colors it is told to display and even then in a limited range (we usually can not detect this), and to save on file size, sometimes it "guesses" what needs to be there... sometimes the color count in a lower file size or a wrong setting within photoshop itself will totally ignore colors 2 3 4 5 while displaying 1 and 6... if that's done and then exported as a final product - you lost the original data scanned. The best way to see this is open up photoshop and make a dark teal to black gradient, and play with display/file type/color settings... on some you will see the FULL Shade (detectable at least) from one to the other, on others? You will see rigid "steps" from one color shade to another.


Last but not least...

Almost all these films MUST be scanned into photoshop or similar programs too (or at least all the ones I have worked with) to correct for scanner problems (not straight, off-colors, etc)... so of course there will be a .PSD associated with scanned film!


Oh and: Yes, we all correct colors to look pleasing to the human eye. All of us do. If someone says they do not tweak colors or remove problems with their photos or tapes - then you are being lied to... or they are just idealists who believe in raw-art

All images ever made have been manipulated to some degree or another... even some of the first photographs.

EDIT to say: Corrections can be made during a shoot, or after a shoot. Not saying all of us use photoshop

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Foxe]

reply to post by Thamelas

Maybe an understanding of how the Russian probe transmitted the images would help. These were not photographs. They were television transmissions. There were a series of transmissions made, each with a different filter. The three filtered images must be combined to produce a color image.

Each lander had two cameras, which repeatedly executed programs of scanning and color filter changes. One camera executed a "short program", beginning with a 180° scan through the clear filter, then scanning back and forth for 60° with red/green/blue filters, and finally a 120° clear image as it reversed back to its starting position. This would ensure a complete panorama and a full color section, even if the lander only survived for 30 minutes. The second camera executed a "long program", scanning a full 180° with clear, red, green and blue filters. They survived about two hours, and returned multiple panoramas.

www.mentallandscape.com...

You can find the raw transmissions here:
www.mentallandscape.com...

The quality is remarkably good, and a nearly perfect transmission can be compiled by carefully merging the information from multiple transmissions. A few sections appear damaged by noise (see left side of Venera-14 Camera-2 below), but these are actually bit synchronization errors which can be repaired in software.

Or am I misunderstanding your point?

Originally posted by Thamelas
What layers?

The ones that do not exist on that file, that's what I am trying to say.

If the person that was working on that image saved the file as PSD then it would keep the layers of the image, the image is not "flattened" as when we save it to JPEG. So, seeing that the image has only the background layer, it means one of several things:

1 - the image was made in Photoshop and "flattened", or, less likely, it was always a one layer image.
2 - the image was made in another program and, once opened in Photoshop, it was saved as PSD just as it was when imported.
3 - the image was made in another program that supports saving to PSD, with or without the possibility of keeping the layers.

When altering an image, the easiest way ito do it s to have several layers, specially if your making corrections to parts of the image, like removing unwanted objects or people.

Are you serious? How can you even ask that when it is blatantly obvious that the two images were being worked on. You can clearly see where the two photos are layered one over the other to create a panoramic.

Yes, I can see that one of the images was pasted over the other, but it's the only thing we can see.

Tell me what else do you see on that image that proves anything else besides someone used Photoshop (or other program that uses the same format) to create that file.

This is a raw image that obviously someone at NASA was working on and forgot about.

It depends on what you call a "raw image", specially considering that's an image made with two photos from a Russian probe. Also, you cannot know if it was "forgotten" or if any work that was supposed to be done was already done.

The simple fact that this file even exists on a NASA server leads one to further consider the issues in the previous moon image, and the implications that it may entail: Gary McKinnon's reports of image processing, and the other NASA whistle blowers.

The simple fact that you have three versions of the image from the opening post, two JPEG and one TIFF, shows that NASA uses image processing software, and this PSD files doesn't show anything more than that.

A "flat" PSD file is the same as a JPEG, it's useless as a "smoking gun".

No offense, but I don't think you are seeing the proper implications of this.

That's true, I am not seeing any implications, this is a file like any other file.

Instead I feel you are simply looking for a way to dismiss this.

Not really, I am only trying to show you that what you have is something unique (in the sense that I have never, as far as I remember, seen a PSD file on a NASA server) but useless, because the only difference is the file format, it only proves that NASA has used (and probably still uses) image processing programs, and everybody already knew that.

Now, as I said, if you had found a PSD file with several layers, with one of the layers, for example with some rocks, overlaid on a layer in a way to cover up something on that base layer, that would be an important discovery.

This is not it.

And yes, the server is down, but don't worry, I saved the file on my computer, so at least you have one witness, even if it's a witness that thinks that your discovery is not important.

Originally posted by ArMaP
And yes, the server is down, but don't worry, I saved the file on my computer, so at least you have one witness, even if it's a witness that thinks that your discovery is not important.

Well one witness is better than none. Thanks.

And...for arguments sake I understand what you are saying, but I still feel it holds greater implications than you are giving it credit for. I guess we agree to disagree on that point.

Originally posted by Thamelas
Well one witness is better than none. Thanks.

Unfortunately I forgot to get a print-screen of that site, but I learned my lesson, I always download any file that may have some interest, even in a far away future.

And...for arguments sake I understand what you are saying, but I still feel it holds greater implications than you are giving it credit for. I guess we agree to disagree on that point.

I agree.

Originally posted by ArMaP
The eraser tool can have many shapes, even in old versions.

A correction:

At least is version 3, the eraser tool in Photoshop was only round. It could have different sizes and a "hard" or "soft" edge, but was only round.

Version 3 is from 1994.

Edit: a correction of the correction: version 3.0 is not from 1997, it's from 1994.

[edit on 20/8/2010 by ArMaP]

reply to post by Thamelas


Nice site ya got there friend
will be having a look see

[edit on 20/8/2010 by stealthyaroura]

reply to post by stealthyaroura


Thanks!

Glad you like it!

Originally posted by Thamelas

I still feel it holds greater implications than you are giving it credit for.

What are the implications of someone at NASA fiddling with a decades old Russian probe photo of the Venusian surface?

I'm glad to see you are so concerned about it. I am not. I have been a digital artist, run two software video game companies, and have advanced degrees in all kinds of exciting things. I have seen what can happen when you start messing with images. So if you think I am wrong, I dont much care. The magic wand cant really follow that boundary without messing up other places. Try it, you'll enjoy it. There is no way that image was lifted with the PS wand tool.
Mainly, I go to the core point ... why would NASA fudge an image like that, and who gives a flying flip if they did?
I guess there are too many smart people unemployed and we have time to jabber about this inane nonesense.

I'm glad to see you are so concerned about it. I am not. I have been a digital artist, run two software video game companies, and have advanced degrees in all kinds of exciting things. I have seen what can happen when you start messing with images. So if you think I am wrong, I dont much care. The magic wand cant really follow that boundary without messing up other places. Try it, you'll enjoy it. There is no way that image was lifted with the PS wand tool.
Mainly, I go to the core point ... why would NASA fudge an image like that, and who gives a flying flip if they did?
I guess there are too many smart people unemployed and we have time to jabber about this inane nonesense.

Originally posted by Machobunny


I don't know if you are talking to me, but I will answer anyway.

I'm glad to see you are so concerned about it. I am not.

I'm not concerned either.

I have been a digital artist, run two software video game companies, and have advanced degrees in all kinds of exciting things. I have seen what can happen when you start messing with images. So if you think I am wrong, I dont much care.

I have been a programmer in a small company for almost 20 years, I don't have any degrees in any kind of thing (exciting or boring), but I have seen what happens when you start messing with images, and I have never seen that happening the you say it probably happened.

I was just asking if you could explain how that happens. Knowing how that happens will help us all in detecting other occasions in which that happened and instead of losing time trying to know what happened we can just classify them as another artefact.

The fact that I just do not take your word about this is nothing personal, I ask this to anyone making any claim, that's why I base my claims in facts, as presented in a previous post in which I reproduced what I think happened.

The magic wand cant really follow that boundary without messing up other places. Try it, you'll enjoy it. There is no way that image was lifted with the PS wand tool.

I already did that.

But why do you say "there is no way that image was lifted with the PS wand tool"? I didn't said it was, what I said was that the background was select with the magic wand and replaced or that the bucket fill tool was used to replace the colour of the sky.

Mainly, I go to the core point ... why would NASA fudge an image like that, and who gives a flying flip if they did?

Why? Probably to make it look better, people like pretty pictures, as you probably know, being a digital artist.

And some people are interested in it, and apparently you also are interested in saying (although not in explaining, which is a shame) that this is nothing special

I guess there are too many smart people unemployed and we have time to jabber about this inane nonesense.

I don't know about you, but I am on vacation, so I can spend my time as I like.

Im glad someone else noticed that too they indeed removed a whole bunch of photo's from there FTP like these one's :

ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-66_3


ISD_highres_STS103_STS103-734-59_3


ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-67_3

reply to post by Dutcheagle


The images are removed because that area is only for temporary files, you can ask for the photos again and again, I have done it many times.

Edit:
Here are the links for those images:
STS088-724-66
STS088-724-67
STS103-734-59