More and better evidence of NASA photo manipulation

reply to post by juleol

Only problem is that nasa claims to provide raw photos, but yet at least some of them appears to have been altered.

No, NASA only claims to present the best quality prints and scans.

Do you also go by the member names of Arianna and Zorgon?

Will you answer tthe question please?

Do you also go by the member names of Arianna and Zorgon?

Thanks.

heres my ultimate question

why would Nasa put these ups (with the ability of getting caught)

when they control the pictures... they could just ... you know not use them?

so ..if i'm reading this reading this right ..the op is saying they did land on the moon

reply to post by NuminousCosmos


I will agree that a scanned negative would be the best available option to do any analysis on (as it would be doubtful you could get an original). But if the examination is being done constantly on a compressed image and not at the highest resolution, preferably a negative scan, than I agree the process to find “What NASA is hiding” is flawed.

Now that said I do a lot of photography and often artificially darken or "paint out" artifacts, lens aberrations etc.

I am curious as to your thoughts or analysis on the one containing the black dots or areas that appear to be brushed. Does the same apply as the compressed image you mention?

It's always exciting to discuss image anomalies most especially when post processed with 'special software' techniques, not revealed, from a digital scan of a film negative or print, (we are uncertain of which) originally processed (we don't know when) by a lab that has to hand clean the film or print without abrasion that would rather leave any processing streaks or imbedded minute dust on the original rather than disturb or destroy (processing lab protocol). Although we do realize any digitization of Apollo film original was done after years of storage. Its kind of like pulling old 70's vinyl and giving it another spin on the old analog turntable. Thanks for that trip down memory lane, I was a big Airplane and Who fan at the end of the 60s among many others.

For all we know the scans 'examined' may have been done 30 years after film storage by these folks.

reply to post by NuminousCosmos


That's exactly what I did not do. I did not run it through an editing program. I ran it through software used in science.
Also you cannot run a tif.file through an error level analyzer. ELA only works on JPG format. So it is pretty logical that you cannot see the manipulation.

Originally posted by 1967sander
reply to post by NuminousCosmos

 

That's exactly what I did not do. I did not run it through an editing program. I ran it through software used in science.
Also you cannot run a tif.file through an error level analyzer. ELA only works on JPG format. So it is pretty logical that you cannot see the manipulation.

What then are you trying to prove? .jpeg images are highly compressed...you're losing actual information from the image when it goes through the compression algorithm. On top of that, it's obvious that the first image you used is edited for NASA public relations. You are ignoring context.

reply to post by supamoto


NO! NO! NO!

Satisfied?

1967sander
(The Netherlands)

reply to post by 1967sander


Now why would an error level analyzer only work with a jpeg? You are aware a jpeg is a lossy reproduction process aren't you, of course an error level analyzer is going to find errors! Because a jpeg compresses and stores algorithm passes of 8 by 8 pixel square areas.

So I find this website and load an archived image digitally created in a 3d software because I knew the source (but not what the server did to it). Of course that site requires a jpeg image already on a server to analyze, it showed that I altered my image, and then offers a lengthy disclaimer that ends with;

It is worth noting that edges and areas red in colour are often depicted as brighter in the ELA tests. This due to the way the photos are saved by various programs. It is not proof that image was manipulated.
If you are unsure how to interpret the results, please do not claim the results of this tool as proof of anything.

Of course maybe only I can see the image of a virus because its in my cache, so try the home page.

Now I'm not claiming the OP is using a cheap internet tool, but a digital image error level analyzer should be able to 'analyze' any digital image file format, preferably RAW. I don't know, load the image in that site and see if it resembles the OP's 'analysis'.

reply to post by 1967sander


woah.. thanks for all the work you are putting into this, I would do it myself if I had that kind of software.
speaking of software, I believe it would be great so spot fake UFO pictures with.
Keep up the good work !

reply to post by 1967sander


Yes.
Thank you.

Hi Sanders,

I'm not sure if you always appreciate my commentary, but I feel there does need to be a counter point to your interpretations of your work, and also some filler information. I won't go into chain of control this time, I believe we have been there, and I'm not going to discuss where your images came from, though I'm sure someone else will.

Analysis of your analysis:

AS17-134-20382 - It would be helpful if you explained to your audience how 'Error Level Analysis' works, and I also believe you've misinterpreted your own results.

If you're using the standard of what error level analysis generally means, you're 100% looking in the wrong area for your manipulation. ELA tends to be saving an image at different levels of quality/at a known error rate and subtracting it from itself to view the nature of the compression. There's a bunch of sub rules to it, but it's a lot to go into with a 5000 character limit ...

Essentially resaving an image over and over again will make an image more stable. Brighter parts are unstable, darker parts are more stable. This is very lay persons terms, but essentially when you're looking at your 'tower' or building, you're looking at an incredibly stable part of the image and ignoring the glow in the dark astronaut in front of you.

Here's an example of a color alteration I did that I then ELA'd.

Original:


Original subtraction/ELA:


Altered blue channel:


Resulting ELA:


What you're essentially looking at is a color correction. Yes, the image has been altered, but for the most part it looks like tonal adjustments to the vehicles, flag, and astronaut. Color corrections often are picked up as false positives in ELA since they typically highlight entire areas of interest that can appear suspect, but are in fact just tonal changes. They also don't typically respond how you might expect. IE ... a change to the blue channel will in fact often end up destablizing the red channel.

From what you have shown, I don't see anything special about your technique, and the sky is completely the wrong place to be looking in this image IMO.

Here is a quick manual knock up:


I didn't reach the same conclusion as yourself. I've concluded it's a color adjustment. I suspect some of the more pronounced work is coming from strong post processing.

GPN-2000-001104.jpg - This one is most confusing.

The original image actually contains these artifacts quite visibly. It certainly doesn't need any special image process to bring these particular artifacts up. I could see it with my naked eye, and I've seen these images doing the rounds.

Again though, you're highlighting the most stable part of the image. ELA isn't doing anything for you here. You're just looking at stable parts of the image and pointing it out saying its clearly visible. It was clearly visible prior to ELA, and is still visible with ELA. Your ELA actually supports it as being part of the original scan!

Regardless of if you believe there is altering going on here or not, the technical results of your process don't support this in my opinion.

GPN-2000-001120 - This one appears to just be a number of scratches. Again, these scratches seem quite stable. This suggests to me that they're part of the original plate. Being scratches, they weren't hit by the color correction a much being mostly on the low end of most channels.

I'm not sure why it is assumed that these scratches are hiding anything in particular. Your quote here ...

"Error level analysis will find the manipulation ... despite how well you try."

I will strongly disagree with this statement. I'm personally certain that without diving into quantization tables and comparing algorithms, ELA by itself is quite easy to side step. Here is an example from my previously altered image ...





I can provide full examples if desired, but will assure that this is the same altered image put through ELA. This process took perhaps 30 seconds, and is simply resaving the image. A near perfect result, or impossible to discern result would not be difficult at all and is not rocket science. It just takes a little time.

GPN-2000-001131 - You state that the first process done on this image is ELA, but this isn't just ELA. As much as you say it's not adaptive histogram equalization (previous thread) it most certainly is a variant of it as shown by my own process here:



The 'ELA' artifact you present here is again already clearly visible in the current image. Your ELA IMO is not furthering your case here. Your equalization process may be destroying it.

If it's just equalization and you've mispoken, I believe you're looking at a scratch. If it's equalization with ELA on top you could be looking at just about anything and it would look like an ice cream truck full of crazy. Still, regardless of a belief that the scratch may be an alteration, ELA isn't really proving anything here regarding its stability with the rest of the image.

I notice your comment about the jpeg compression, stating if it was a jpeg artifact it would be visible on the hill. Does this mean you've changed your mind on your previous statement regarding the 'stair case' hill? (discussion in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...)

Anyway ... regardless of yours (or my opinion) on this subject ... from what I have seen your work flow doesn't actually support your argument one way or the other. I'm not sure, perhaps I am missing something technical you've done but it just seems your results don't match what you're trying to present. Yes, in these images there is a lot of grain and scratches and odd patches, but your error level analysis process hasn't done anything to explain this from your end.

You seem to present in a rather CSI style which is not my experience of forensic or scientific analysis. Stating that you can't avoid ELA I think is pushing a rather dangerous line. ELA is an incredibly simple process, and possible to completely bypass by accident!

Anyway, happy new year.

Disclaimer: Pinke doesn't know very much. Pinke wrote all of this in one sitting and missed out lots of technical details. Links may be wrong. Pinke will work for food. Pinke is not an equal oppurtunities employer. Pinke may or may not be on a horse.

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by 1967sander

 

Now why would an error level analyzer only work with a jpeg? You are aware a jpeg is a lossy reproduction process aren't you, of course an error level analyzer is going to find errors! Because a jpeg compresses and stores algorithm passes of 8 by 8 pixel square areas.

This isn't essentially true, and I've had this conversation with sander in the past.

Even without any special software you can perform these processes on any compression format. It requires knowledge of how that compression format behaves, and some of the more subtle or chaotic ones can be difficult to interpret. Uncompressed sources, especially floating point, become much more difficult to work with.

Regarding ELA finding errors ... Without writing an essay, jpeg compression is quite predictable, and quite easy even for an untrained person to learn how to do basic ELA and have a basic idea of what's going on. It's because of its destructive and predictable nature that ELA works nicely with jpegs in many ways and the results are mostly intuitive.

Sorry for the crazy amount of spam ahaha

Of course they're manipulated when they can't be suppressed. Too many people have come forward to make such claims. Why? Why would these people purposefully want to go against the grain and call attention to something that will ultimately make themselves look foolish?
Why?
Well, maybe because they're telling the truth.

There are far MORE reasons why they would keep this from us then to show it to us.

I guarantee that anyone who has had an experience, has walked away from said-experience questioning everything they taught. Along with distrusting those who have the power to keep these secrets hidden.

We're here to tell you, the existence of extraterrestrials is being sequestered.

But who is keeping this knowledge from us?....remains a mystery. And I don't believe every single employee at NASA knows. I do believe however, a small village-worth of people from NASA knows though.

And who better to tell us (I am full of it) than: Jim Oberg in 3, 2, 1

Wait a minute. The pictures that were taken by NASA for the Apollo propaganda project were paid for by American taxpayer dollars. The negatives are the property of every American citizen.

However, ASU is taking scans of the public property negatives and then ASU is claiming copyright to the scans. Finally then, ASU has a prohibitive licensing scheme for "all image and any derived products" they created.

apollo.sese.asu.edu...

Acceptable Use

Arizona State University retains the rights to all image and any derived products (such as movies), in part and in whole. ASU hereby grants permission for news media, educators, personal, and scientific users to download and use individual ASU-produced Apollo images and their complete associated captions if applicable for personal, educational, and research uses without express permission. The following credit line is required: "NASA/JSC/Arizona State University." If space constraints do not permit a credit line of this length, then "NASA/JSC/ASU" is acceptable.

These images and associated derived products are provided with a nonexclusive, non-transferable license for use only by you. These images and associated derived products may not be used in any commercial or business environment or for any commercial or business purposes for yourself or any third parties. These images and their associated derived products may not be copied, reverse engineered, decompiled, disassembled, translated, modified or have derivative works made of the imagery, in whole or in part. You also may not rent, disclose, publish, sell, assign, lease, sub-license, market, or transfer the imagery or any part thereof or use it in any manner not expressly authorized.

Third-party commercial use of these data products is expressly prohibited. Written permission for such use is required from the project's principal investigator.

The only conclusion here is that these images are not NASA images - they are "NASA/JSC/ASU" images.

Sander, do you have "express permission" from "NASA/JSC/ASU" to reverse engineer these images??

Why has NASA got to hide behind ASU with a restrictive, personal use license? Never A Straight Answer.

I'd love it if some of these images were doctored, but all I can see are compression errors that have been highlighted with your photo editing software.

And call me cynical, if there were buildings on the moon, surely NASA would only release the photos that do not show the buildings, instead of doctoring images.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


You're not allowed to claim these images as your own. You are not allowed to sell these images. U mad?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


You just don't understand standard disclaimer policies. What you think that says is and are trying to represent is not what that means.

Let me help you understand.
First, simple, nobody can resell any NASA image for profit.
Second, Nobody, corporate or personal, can use a NASA image as any kind of endorsement expressed or implied.
Nobody can alter a NASA image to be used for illicit purposes. (false representation expressed or implied)
Basic standard imagery use of a photo you don't own or contracted.

Sorry bub, I pay taxes too but that doesn't mean they are your photos, neither are the Navy's or the Air Force's or the Army's.