Most images from NASA are 'manipulated'. Of course they are.
Perfect examples of this are many distant nebula pictures. They are all nice and colorful and pretty.. but that is manipulated.. because the sources are not visible light images. So in order to make it viewable to the general public, colors are added/shifted, etc.
As for stuff coming off of soho.. do you think someone is sitting there 24/7 staring at the thing to ensure nothing "odd" comes through in order to manipulate the imagery before transferred to the public site? This is an incredibly large amount of work...
As for stuff like the moon landing and such... could there be some fakery in the imagery? Perhaps.. But hey, anyone with a telescope can point it up there, and if it's strong enough.. see details. They made a big deal about how the footprints would stay there.. well there we are. Let's get one of those asian nations with a space program to go proof that for us, or hire ourselves a high power telescope to analyze the 'landing spot' for ourselves... yes?
Quoting: nomindHi.
This is kind of contradictory: you are suggesting "all" images are manipulated and then suggest some aren't. :)
However, sure impressions could be altered in the nebula pictures timply to make them look better -- yes -- and reprocessing for data problems could also be done quite innocently.
But in this case, if data had been lost, why fill it in? (Left of Venus would be missing, if there was a mere shift over in data in Venus area.) Some things are better honestly presented: try to recover data but don't create it.
As to having people poring over the images: maybe; maybe not.
It is very possible they try to go over images for anything truly anomalous, though.
What could have been anomalous here? I don't know.
Finally: re. Apollo: no, no-one here can see close-up detail on the Moon area for the landings: too small for us, tiny tiny details. And all images of the Moon show NO CLOSEUPS of the landing sites.
So, there's a loophole on that one.
