Jack White

NASA has been CAUGHT retouching and switching photos

112 posts in this topic

While doing some research for Jim to use in the Burton debate, I made this stunning discovery.

(Sorry it was very large, and the type suffered degraded pixelation because I had to reduce the image;

I will redo it later at a smaller size.)

This is DEFINITE PROOF that NASA falsifies photos. As a judge would say in a court of law, if a

witness is found lying about ONE THING, you may presume that they would lie about other things.

More than 5 years ago, I saved an image WITH A ROCK MISSING UNDER THE ROVER. In 2010, the

IMAGE HAS BEEN CHANGED, and the rock is now there. This is INDISPUTABLE PROOF of malfeasance.

Jack

post-667-059704800 1283805762_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While doing some research for Jim to use in the Burton debate, I made this stunning discovery.

(Sorry it was very large, and the type suffered degraded pixelation because I had to reduce the image;

I will redo it later at a smaller size.)

This is DEFINITE PROOF that NASA falsifies photos. As a judge would say in a court of law, if a

witness is found lying about ONE THING, you may presume that they would lie about other things.

More than 5 years ago, I saved an image WITH A ROCK MISSING UNDER THE ROVER. In 2010, the

IMAGE HAS BEEN CHANGED, and the rock is now there. This is INDISPUTABLE PROOF of malfeasance.

Jack

-So Jack can you provide a link to copies of both versions of the photo to NASA related websites?

-Even if you could it would not prove a thing, retouching photos is onething forging them is something else. Didn't you ever retouch any of your photos?

-I am confused, are arguing that the rock disapeared between the two frames or that it was in one or both 5 years ago and is missing from the same frame now? FWIW the object does not look like a rock but rather like something that could have been picked up.

Edited by Len Colby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jack,

From which NASA source did you get the image with the missing rock? We know you use images wherever google finds them, like the recent one from fotosearch that wasn't even from a moon mission. You must have found that on an official NASA site if you're claiming they photoshopped it, right?

Here are better quality scans that are actually from NASA. No missing rock, timestamps in 2005. You can see that the rover was actually moving in the second one, with dirt falling from the wheels. Kinda makes the argument that it was lifted into place seem silly.

AS15-85-11470HR.jpg

AS15-85-11471HR.jpg

This one has a timestamp in 2002 and isn't on a NASA site. No missing rock:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-85-11470

I bet if you went to a library and looked at some actual books, you could find much older reproductions of this image without any missing rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW the object does not look like a rock but rather like something that could have been picked up.

If you look at good quality scans rather than the crappy ones that Jack prefers, it looks more like a rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the old version where the rock is supposedly missing, it looks to be a low quality image. There is also "something" in the precise spot and shape as the rock in the new one. I would say the new image is better resolution and better contrast. That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accusing me of faking the photo is beyond irresponsible...but typical of these assets,

Jack

Who accused you of faking it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who say I tampered with the AIG photo, here is the computer record of that image.

I first downloaded from AIG in June, 2001. At that time I did not have enough memory (or reason)

to save hi-res images, so all that I saved were JPGs.

I did the study in question in 2003.

Since my study was done, the image I saved has been taken down, and a retouched image added

with the missing rock added.

Here is my computer record of the image. Let's have no more accusations. It is NASA who did

the tampering and replaced the deficient image. There is no denying this.

Jack

post-667-071054800 1283824158_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHO accused you of tampering with or faking it? NOBODY here has done so.

Edited by Matthew Lewis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who say I tampered with the AIG photo, here is the computer record of that image.

I first downloaded from AIG in June, 2001. At that time I did not have enough memory (or reason)

to save hi-res images, so all that I saved were JPGs.

I did the study in question in 2003.

Since my study was done, the image I saved has been taken down, and a retouched image added

with the missing rock added.

Here is my computer record of the image. Let's have no more accusations. It is NASA who did

the tampering and replaced the deficient image. There is no denying this.

Jack

We really don't have a clue where you downloaded that from. Nor do you. Your squealings are pretty empty without proof of provenance.

Besides HASA is quite open to admit PR imagers were routinely retouched...standard practice in the AD and PR business. You of all people should know that. Nothing sinister in that at all.

NASA and its web partners have replaced lower quality and older online scans of the Apollo missions with newer and more detailed scan for some time now.

Again nothing sinister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the old version where the rock is supposedly missing, it looks to be a low quality image. There is also "something" in the precise spot and shape as the rock in the new one. I would say the new image is better resolution and better contrast. That is all.

pixel resize

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the old version where the rock is supposedly missing, it looks to be a low quality image. There is also "something" in the precise spot and shape as the rock in the new one. I would say the new image is better resolution and better contrast. That is all.

pixel resize

Thank you John. As I said, there is definitely something there. How dare NASA release a photo that shows something better that was there all along!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome Matthew. Aren't they naughty (as well as incompetent). :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no denying that NASA has removed the image I downloaded nine years ago and replaced it with a different image.

Jack

post-667-094348800 1283835036_thumb.jpg

Edited by Jack White

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about your false accusation of someone here accusing you of faking the picture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now