[Ghost of V]

Another example that I found, which is actually pretty old news, but still telling nonetheless.

This is a picture of Saturn's moons:



Looks pretty normal, right?

This is what happens when you increase the contrast and perform a few other revealing tweaks.



Does that look normal to you, rottingroom?

It certainly doesn't look normal to me. If this doesn't convince you that NASA is up to something, then I'm afraid you're a lost cause. Interestingly enough, NASA did not admit to "enhancing" this photograph despite the fact that they have admitted photo enchantments regarding other less serious offenders.

[Rama Set]

It convinces me that they are up to something: making the somewhat bland images there scientists look at more interesting and dynamic for the public who "just want to see cool shit".

So sinister!

[Ghost of V]

It convinces me that they are up to something: making the somewhat bland images there scientists look at more interesting and dynamic for the public who "just want to see cool shit".

So sinister!

That doesn't explain the large alien looking mass near the smaller moon in this photo...

[rottingroom]

The fact that an unaltered image is available to even discuss just makes the unaltered image even more valid.

The fes's problem with NASA is that the images are allegedly fake. Not just enhanced to look prettier.

[Gulliver]

...
It certainly doesn't look normal to me. If this doesn't convince you that NASA is up to something, then I'm afraid you're a lost cause. ...

So you're arguing that "unknown agents" are using "unknown methods" to create "false data" that no one can reliably critique as fraud now? Please adjust your tin-foil hat, and document your claim rigorously. What "tweaks" did you apply in what order to what original? What is the provenance of the original?

[Ghost of V]

The fact that an unaltered image is available to even discuss just makes the unaltered image even more valid.

No. The only way one would discover this is if one turned up the constrast on the original image. This was an oversight on NASA's part. They were careless and let this photoshopped image fall through the cracks. If they deleted it or tried to discredit it then it would arouse even more suspicion. NASA has been surprisingly quiet about the Saturn's moons image.

...
It certainly doesn't look normal to me. If this doesn't convince you that NASA is up to something, then I'm afraid you're a lost cause. ...

So you're arguing that "unknown agents" are using "unknown methods" to create "false data" that no one can reliably critique as fraud now? Please adjust your tin-foil hat, and document your claim rigorously. What "tweaks" did you apply in what order to what original? What is the provenance of the original?

You can see it for yourself. Take the original image, put it in Photoshop, increase the contrast. It's seriously that easy. The original image is there for you to do with what you please. Knock yourself out, Gully (literally, please).

[rottingroom]

What? If I made a fake image of a planet then why would there be an original? I would just make the fake image.

[Ghost of V]

What? If I made a fake image of a planet then why would there be an original? I would just make the fake image.

Those are not planets. They are moons. The dark shadow around the right side of the smaller moon is an artifact left over from creating the duped image. At least that is my theory. Some people claim its some sort of alien spacecraft, which I personally don't believe.

[rottingroom]

Okay moons. Same difference. If I made a fake image, why would I get an image of something real and then alter it. How can their be an image available to manipulate of something real? Your contention is that there is no moon.

[Ghost of V]

Okay moons. Same difference. If I made a fake image, why would I get an image of something real and then alter it. How can their be an image available to manipulate of something real? Your contention is that there is no moon.

My contention was never "there is no moon". That's your first mistake.

The image was modified to cover this artifact up OR was a result of modifying the image to begin with. I wish I understood NASA's motives, but sadly I do not.

[rottingroom]

Okay, so then you think the space program is real?

[Ghost of V]

Okay, so then you think the space program is real?

That is irrelevant. That is not what we are discussing.

http://i.imgur.com/BRDMamu.jpg

What is on the right side of the smaller moon and why is it there? That is what we are discussing.

[rottingroom]

It is relevant. This is the flat earth society and conspiracies are discussed here. Conspiracies are discussed because the FE position is that humanity hasn't been to space.

[Shmeggley]

Okay, so then you think the space program is real?

That is irrelevant. That is not what we are discussing.

http://i.imgur.com/BRDMamu.jpg

What is on the right side of the smaller moon and why is it there? That is what we are discussing.

Maybe you should ask the person who made the image:

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2010/2710.html

[Ghost of V]

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2010/2710.html

She's kinda cute. Yeah, I might have a few questions to ask her.

[Rama Set]

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2010/2710.html

She's kinda cute. Yeah, I might have a few questions to ask her.

That is irrelevant. That is not what we are discussing.

What is on the right side of the smaller moon and why is it there? That is what we are discussing.

So now that you have been provided with a plausible story, do you have anything else to say on the matter?

[Ghost of V]

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2010/2710.html

She's kinda cute. Yeah, I might have a few questions to ask her.

That is irrelevant. That is not what we are discussing.

What is on the right side of the smaller moon and why is it there? That is what we are discussing.

So now that you have been provided with a plausible story, do you have anything else to say on the matter?

Hardly plausible. I don't see how said editing creates shadow objects such as that. It seems like something was deliberately covered up. The black shadow objects are actually "brushstrokes" from whatever editing program she used. You can clearly see that there is a light being emitted from behind the covered portion of the photo. What was there? She certainly didn't address that in her explanation, and if she did she used enough techno-babble to confuse even the most intelligent scholars of our time.

[Rama Set]

So you don't understand it, that is fine. We can go two ways with that: 1. NASA  is performing a sinister cover up; 2. You are ignorant of the workings of the photo editing program they used.

Applying Occam's Razor, option 2 seems like the likely answer.

[Ghost of V]

So you don't understand it, that is fine. We can go two ways with that: 1. NASA  is performing a sinister cover up; 2. You are ignorant of the workings of the photo editing program they used.

Applying Occam's Razor, option 2 seems like the likely answer.

I'm not ignorant of the photo editing process. I explained what was done to the photo in my last post. I want to know what is behind the brushstrokes. Why are you avoiding the question?

Why is everyone avoiding this question?

[Rama Set]

So you don't understand it, that is fine. We can go two ways with that: 1. NASA  is performing a sinister cover up; 2. You are ignorant of the workings of the photo editing program they used.

Applying Occam's Razor, option 2 seems like the likely answer.

I'm not ignorant of the photo editing process. I explained what was done to the photo in my last post. I want to know what is behind the brushstrokes. Why are you avoiding the question?

Because it was explicitly answered in the article:

some misalignment in the three component images that resulted from Dione's apparent motion across Titan in the time that separated the three frames.

Why is everyone avoiding this question?

What is with the histrionics?