Not sure if this will help or simply fan a flame. While I do see differences in contrast, shadow, brightness etc between the pictures, I don't see enough difference to make me think anyone at NASA is trying to say there isn't a hill.

It may be a trick of the eye that's causing you so much trouble. It is hard for me to tell sometimes, because I spend a lot of time both at work and on the weekends looking at maps like on these pages.

To be specific, compare a shaded topo map to an unshaded one. The difference is quite drastic.

How it applies is this. From time to time it is necessary for me to teach people how to use these maps as part of my work. With a little explanation, most people can work out the basics of a non-shaded map, but it is not unusual for people to struggle with "seeing" the hills and valleys right away. The concept is there, but the practice is not.

Other times I have started with a shaded version. The shaded version adds shadows that make the relief jump right out at you. No practice needed.

Reading through this series of posts, I suspect this may be the root of the issue. It is a big deal if data was changed or manipulated--I'm not denying that. I would suspect it's a frustration on your/other people's parts though in seeing it as "severely flattened". Yes, a lot of the visual cues we are used to associating with hills are gone, but I still see what is unmistakably a hill to me. I can't give details on it's size because I have nothing near it for comparison, but it is a hill. Check out those maps and let me know your thoughts.

*Obviously there are no contour lines on the photo, but draw them in with your minds eye using the visual data that IS present and you may be pleasantly surprised.

And if I'm wrong? Well, then I'm wrong. It's just a suggestion.