Netherlands Artists
Mar 23

For some odd reason, 3 of 6 photos provided by the NASA site showing Mars were from the Netherlands. Perhaps the best photo doctors reside there.

Netherlands is a headquarters for many world trade shows. Many good photo doctors there.

Anonymous Professional

The Original from the first available for download. The blowup below is from Nancy, who also found the shading and pixel size looking genuine around the Mars/Pleiades location.

Not yet sure about this one. It is either genuine or very good. All pixels seem uniform in shape and size. No apparent artwork. I've only done a cursory study. I'll work more on it and see if there is anything anomolous. Until then I give it a genuine photo classification.

Anonymous Professional

The Original from the second available for download. The blowup at right is from Nancy, who noted that the shading lean for Mars was to the lower left, in the Pleiades to the upper right, but for other stars in the photo the lean is to the lower right consistently! Mars and Pleiades separate pastes from separate sources, perhaps. In addition, the shading in the other stars is more subtle, with Mars and Pleiades having strong contrast in the surrounding pixels.

At first glance this one looks OK. Pixels are uniform with no apparent cut and paste etc. I have adjusted the brightness and contract to bring out an interesting feature, not in the sky but instead on the foreground. See the arrow [at left, below]. The horizon of a citiscape is a straight line like it is cut and paste in. If that is so then the photo has been altered in some way with a fake location.

Anonymous Professional

The Original from the third available for download. The blowup below is from Nancy, who noted squares around Mars and the Pleiades similar to the alterations inserting text gives, but this same square appearance also is around the other stars in the photo! All the stars, thus, would have to be a paste, unlikely.

I gave this one the same simple tests as the others. This one has no obvious anamolies and appears to be genuine. In all five cases I am only pointing out my opinion due to anomolies found. Depending on how each photo was pocessed there is always the possibility that a genuine one has artifacts created by changing its size , shape, or by adding text, leading me to believe it is faked in some way. I have only pointed out obvious anomolies which influences my opinion. But they are obvious. The ones I call probably genuine are also subject to error since a good photo artist can leave no traces. I've given my best judgement based on the knowns.

Anonymous Professional