NASA has been CAUGHT retouching and switching photos

[Craig Lamson]

What proof do you have that anyone else photoshopped that phony Apollo photo, besides NASA?

What proof do YOU have that the originals were in fact altered by NASA?

[Kevin M. West]

Are you kidding me? If you want proof that Jack photoshopped the image, just compare it to the original.

This is AS17-137-20891.

What jack posted was cropped and heavily manipulated by photoshop (and I use the term generically here, it could be any image editing software).

Clearly not manipulated in the same way as the picture right next to it. How can you manipulate a photo 2 different ways and then claim the difference in the results is anyone's fault other than your own?

[Jack White]

For DISTANT shots of the LM, a studio prop made of cardboard thumbtacked to a wooden frame worked OK.

BUT, it would not pass close inspection.

Jack

[Jack White]

Are you kidding me? If you want proof that Jack photoshopped the image, just compare it to the original.

This is AS17-137-20891.

What jack posted was cropped and heavily manipulated by photoshop (and I use the term generically here, it could be any image editing software).

Clearly not manipulated in the same way as the picture right next to it. How can you manipulate a photo 2 different ways and then claim the difference in the results is anyone's fault other than your own?

Are you kidding me? OF COURSE I enhanced the photo and cropped it. That is what

one does when using computer analysis. That is what I said I did. Are you kidding me?

[Steve Knight]

I didn't misunderstand what you wrote.. Nor was I making a cheap slur.. You quoted President Obama about the merging of NASA with the DoD, so naturally I assumed you agreed with him.

As for him lying, I doubt it .. More like he's been misinformed by the powers that be in NASA / DoD, which, as I stated before, are joined at the hip, and always have been.

Maybe I need to send you the documents, proving that most of NASA's "civilian" space missions were performed to place DoD spy sattelites into low earth orbit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_shuttle_missions#Launches_and_orbital_flights

Last dedicated Space Shuttle mission with a partially or wholly classified DoD mission payload was in .... 1992.

Some payloads since have been for the DoD, but as an afterthought, not specifically missioned for. When there's been room after all the Science missions, and ISS materials have been loaded.

DoD/Military have turned to unmanned boosters to launch their recent payloads. Guess they didn't want to risk another loss like Challenger in 1989, eh?

I seriously doubt NASA and DoD are as close now as they were for the years of the "Cold War". Hell, NASA have to compete for contracts these days with other nations' space-programs.

[Kevin M. West]

Are you kidding me? If you want proof that Jack photoshopped the image, just compare it to the original.

This is AS17-137-20891.

What jack posted was cropped and heavily manipulated by photoshop (and I use the term generically here, it could be any image editing software).

Clearly not manipulated in the same way as the picture right next to it. How can you manipulate a photo 2 different ways and then claim the difference in the results is anyone's fault other than your own?

Are you kidding me? OF COURSE I enhanced the photo and cropped it. That is what

one does when using computer analysis. That is what I said I did. Are you kidding me?

I wasn't replying to you, Jack, I was replying to Duane who implied that you didn't manipulate the photo.

[Craig Lamson]

NASA seems to be playing catchup on CLEANUP.

Jack

Just to make sure I have your claims correct. Can you please answers these simple questions in regards to your study shown below.

1. Are you claimng that the blocky areas surrounding the LM in the left photo are the resul tof NASA (or someone) using photoshop or someother image manipulation tool to paint in or clone the sky area to make it black, leaving areas ( the blocky artifacts) untouched?

2. How have you tested any of these images to conme to your conclusions?

3. How did you rule out JPG compression as a source of the blocky artifacts?

4. Is the method of "enhancement" you used in your work on the right, as effective as the one shown on the left?

[Matthew Lewis]

For DISTANT shots of the LM, a studio prop made of cardboard thumbtacked to a wooden frame worked OK.

BUT, it would not pass close inspection.

Jack

How many spacecraft have you built Jack? Do you know the difference between structural material (which is not visible in your photograph) and insulative, reflective, and/or micrometeoroid protective material (which is visible)? Apparently not. Just because you are ignorant about what you are looking at doesn't mean anyone else is. Interestingly enough the LM shares many similarities with satellites (much of the same materials used) which also, just like the LM, were designed to spend their entire service life in the vacuum of space. Why do you suppose that the thousands of scientists all over the world that do build and work with spacecraft for a living don't have a problem with the way the LM looked?

[Duane Daman]

Are you kidding me? If you want proof that Jack photoshopped the image, just compare it to the original.

This is AS17-137-20891.

What jack posted was cropped and heavily manipulated by photoshop (and I use the term generically here, it could be any image editing software).

Clearly not manipulated in the same way as the picture right next to it. How can you manipulate a photo 2 different ways and then claim the difference in the results is anyone's fault other than your own?

Are you kidding me? OF COURSE I enhanced the photo and cropped it. That is what

one does when using computer analysis. That is what I said I did. Are you kidding me?

I wasn't replying to you, Jack, I was replying to Duane who implied that you didn't manipulate the photo.

There is a BIG difference between cropping and enhancing a photo to show off the anomalies in it, than manipulating it for nefarious purposes.

But then I'm sure you already knew that before you implied that Jack had done something dishonest.

[Craig Lamson]

There is a BIG difference between cropping and enhancing a photo to show off the anomalies in it, than manipulating it for nefarious purposes.

But then I'm sure you already knew that before you implied that Jack had done something dishonest.

Just to be sure I have it correct. You claim the images jack has shown show that the black sky has been "manipulated nefarious purposes"?

Jack is being honest wiht the claim that all skys with detail are fake, and NASA and the websites that post NASA images are lying faking the skys?

A simple yes or no to each question will do.

[Jack White]

For DISTANT shots of the LM, a studio prop made of cardboard thumbtacked to a wooden frame worked OK.

BUT, it would not pass close inspection.

Jack

How many spacecraft have you built Jack? Do you know the difference between structural material (which is not visible in your photograph) and insulative, reflective, and/or micrometeoroid protective material (which is visible)? Apparently not. Just because you are ignorant about what you are looking at doesn't mean anyone else is. Interestingly enough the LM shares many similarities with satellites (much of the same materials used) which also, just like the LM, were designed to spend their entire service life in the vacuum of space. Why do you suppose that the thousands of scientists all over the world that do build and work with spacecraft for a living don't have a problem with the way the LM looked?

And they put it together with thumbtacks?

[Matthew Lewis]

For DISTANT shots of the LM, a studio prop made of cardboard thumbtacked to a wooden frame worked OK.

BUT, it would not pass close inspection.

Jack

How many spacecraft have you built Jack? Do you know the difference between structural material (which is not visible in your photograph) and insulative, reflective, and/or micrometeoroid protective material (which is visible)? Apparently not. Just because you are ignorant about what you are looking at doesn't mean anyone else is. Interestingly enough the LM shares many similarities with satellites (much of the same materials used) which also, just like the LM, were designed to spend their entire service life in the vacuum of space. Why do you suppose that the thousands of scientists all over the world that do build and work with spacecraft for a living don't have a problem with the way the LM looked?

And they put it together with thumbtacks?

How do you KNOW those are thumbtacks?

[Evan Burton]

No, not thumbtacks. But lightweight construction for a vehicle that will only operate in space.

[Evan Burton]

Come on Jack - how was the LM constructed? There are detailed records, so show us where thumbtacks were used.

[Duane Daman]

I didn't misunderstand what you wrote.. Nor was I making a cheap slur.. You quoted President Obama about the merging of NASA with the DoD, so naturally I assumed you agreed with him.

As for him lying, I doubt it .. More like he's been misinformed by the powers that be in NASA / DoD, which, as I stated before, are joined at the hip, and always have been.

Maybe I need to send you the documents, proving that most of NASA's "civilian" space missions were performed to place DoD spy sattelites into low earth orbit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_shuttle_missions#Launches_and_orbital_flights

Last dedicated Space Shuttle mission with a partially or wholly classified DoD mission payload was in .... 1992.

Some payloads since have been for the DoD, but as an afterthought, not specifically missioned for. When there's been room after all the Science missions, and ISS materials have been loaded.

DoD/Military have turned to unmanned boosters to launch their recent payloads. Guess they didn't want to risk another loss like Challenger in 1989, eh?

I seriously doubt NASA and DoD are as close now as they were for the years of the "Cold War". Hell, NASA have to compete for contracts these days with other nations' space-programs.

I have the DoD/NASA documents that prove otherwise.

Like I said before, many of NASA's recent missions were done to place DoD spy satellites into low earth orbit.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Duane Daman