Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why does NASA airbrush this picture of Buzz Aldrin on the moon?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Hi folks, tried the search but couldn't find anything on this. I was looking through NASA's website for a cool desktop image and I stumbled across this picture of Buzz Aldrin on the moon that is clearly airbrushed. And a poor job too. Now since this is in the Downloads section you wouldn't expect them to be totally uneditet, but this seems a bit weid to me. The crosses that I believe were etched into the lenses for reference have been partially removed and smudged.

Original Nasa image is here:



Here are two cutouts I've made. I've circled the area where you can see that something is not right. What do you think of these? Especially the right one in the picture with two cirlces. This looks like cut & paste to me as there is two croshairs on top of eachother.






And last but not least, does anybody know what the two shining objects to the left of the astronaut is? One is casting a long shadow and the other is not. It's also weird that the shadows converge, but I'm guessing this is because you're seing the reflection in a round object (the helmet glas) so it's distorted.





posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I don't know what those are, but there are certainly a lot of questions about the photos of the moon landing. This site has some interesting points. Especially the crosshairs noted in item "p".

Very interesting...



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Bad Astronomies Answer


What happened becomes clearer when you look more closely at the images. The times it looks like an object is in front of the crosshair (because the crosshair looks blocked by the object) is when the object photographed is white. The crosshair is black. Have you ever taken an image that is overexposed? White parts bleed into the film around them, making them look white too. That's all that happened here; the white object in the image ``fills in'' the black crosshair. It's a matter of contrast: the crosshair becomes invisible because the white part overwhelms the film. This is basic photography.


[edit on 12-12-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 12-12-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 12-12-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

This looks like cut & paste to me as there is two croshairs on top of eachother

Dude, its the camera used. Its not a 'cut and paste'. Cut and paste didn't exist when those photos were made.


I stumbled across this picture of Buzz Aldrin on the moon that is clearly airbrushed

Its not a scientific photo. Its a photo that is presented to the public as a sort of ad for nasa. If it is airbrushed, so what?


One is casting a long shadow and the other is not

It could be that its just too far for the flash on the camera to have an effect. A flash isn't allways going to be able to illuminate everything or cast a shadow.

Also, think about it. Lets pretend that that photo is from a sound stage.

What different does it make? Why wouldn't there be a shadow on the second object in a sound stage, with a source of light in front of them like that? How can you get the one shadow, but not the other, and not have a similar effect on the moon itself?



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
This really brings me back to the days just before I registered here. I was doing some research on the Moon Landing Hoax. I had not seen this particular image before, I don't believe.

But since it is clearly a Publicity Photo, one possible explanantion, is that they modified the image to have a better layout. I.e., have the astronaut better centered in that particular moonscape.

Or if you believe people like Edgar Cayce, it's the handiwork of the "whistleblowers".


The only way to truly find out, is to contact Public Affairs at NASA. I'm quite certain they have some form of public relations office. Whether they would tell you anything, or at least anything that you would believe is another story.

But good find.




I'll keep a copy of that right next to my copy of the Zapruder video.

Note to Sardion: The crosshairs here do appear to be more smudged than the overexposure variety. I do understand about that aspect of the crosshairs. But as this is a Publicity Ad, I believe it is a composite image. But since it is an Ad, the point is moot.

[edit on 12/12/2006 by Mechanic 32]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
The crosshairs are less visible in some spots because they are underlain by the features of the photo. THey are clear when its just the moon as the background, and understandably pop out of view when its something like a glove behind them.

Hell, for all we know, they were semitransparent decals on the lense of the camera, and shouldn't look the same under all conditions in the first place.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Hell, for all we know, they were semitransparent decals on the lense of the camera, and shouldn't look the same under all conditions in the first place.


Actually no, that's not correct. The particular model of Hasselblad (sp?) camera that Apollo took to the moon for those shots, is widely known.

That camera was specially modified per NASA specs.

The crosshairs were etched onto a glass plate on the interior of the camera.


But as was already stated, since this is a publicity photo, the point is moot, either way.

[edit on 12/12/2006 by Mechanic 32]

[edit on 12/12/2006 by Mechanic 32]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Gotcha Mechanic! Nice catch.

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Why would they use a composite when this beaut is available...

Google Image search rox btw.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Why would they use a composite when this beaut is available...


They may very well have used that exact pic, but airbrushed the crosshairs to be less prominent.

just an opinion.

I'll have to do a more thorough comparison of the two pics, to be sure though.

I don't have the resources to do that on the harddrive I'm running off of right at this moment though.

I'll post the results, when I do.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Okay, I have taken sardions image and opened it in my image editor.

Then I opened the advertisement image in a layer on top of sardions image.

I gave the top image 50 percent transparency, and lined them up the best I could:

i45.photobucket.com...

I then made the top image negative.

All areas that are exactly alike, should show up as a medium shade of grey:

i45.photobucket.com...

All areas of the image that are not alike will stand out from the rest of the image. As you can see, the crosshairs have indeed been airbrushed. Most likely to be less prominent, as I had stated earlier. This is an advertisement, after all.

Voila! Case closed.

Anyone with Photoshop, MS PictureIt, or MS DigitalImage, or equivalent can also use this technique to compare photos that seem to have identical qualities.




[edit on 12/12/2006 by Mechanic 32]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Bad Astronomies Answer


What happened becomes clearer when you look more closely at the images. The times it looks like an object is in front of the crosshair (because the crosshair looks blocked by the object) is when the object photographed is white. The crosshair is black. Have you ever taken an image that is overexposed? White parts bleed into the film around them, making them look white too. That's all that happened here; the white object in the image ``fills in'' the black crosshair. It's a matter of contrast: the crosshair becomes invisible because the white part overwhelms the film. This is basic photography.


[edit on 12-12-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 12-12-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 12-12-2006 by sardion2000]


I'm not bying that one! Look again at the first two pictures. The background is not white, it's grey. Get the original from NASA, zoom in and tell me again that is a "natural" phenomenon...

Also, Notice I'm not stating anything about a moon hoax here! I do believe there are some questions unansvered and that they might have made some "plan B" material in a studio in case the rocket blew up or whatever, but I'm not saying it's all a hoax.

I'm simply wondering why they airbrushed this picture... It might just be for layout or appearance, but then you'd think they'd atleast do a proper job? This is photoshop-noob-work...

Okay, here's an idea. Everybody look through some official NASA images that weren't editet as desktop backgrounds and see if we can find any of these smudges in other pictures. If there are none, then I won't bring this issue up again


Oh and what do people think the objects we see in the helmet reflection is? Kind of looks like a spotlight to me, but as far as I know they never brought any lights up there? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by DrLeary]

[edit on 13-12-2006 by DrLeary]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrLeary


I'm simply wondering why they airbrushed this picture... It might just be for layout or appearance, but then you'd think they'd atleast do a proper job? This is photoshop-noob-work...


Well if you think about it, they did'nt have Photoshop in the Apollo days. They did it the old fashioned way, so to speak. Either on a copy of the negative, or on a copy of the photograph used. Of course, I could be wrong altogether, as I don't know when the picture was modified.




Oh and what do people think the objects we see in the helmet reflection is? Kind of looks like a spotlight to me, but as far as I know they never brought any lights up there? Please correct me if I'm wrong.



As for the reflections, if NASA had the forethought of lightening the crosshairs, why would'nt they have removed the damning "evidence" of spotlight reflections on the helmet.

Don't get me wrong, I don't trust NASA or the Gov't 100% in any way shape or form. But one would think that a public relations photograph would not blatantly show anything contrary to the Official Story.

Just my 2 cents.

I have done extensive research myself regarding this very Apollo mission. that is, in fact what led me here to ATS in the first place. I have read all the material I could get my hands on. I do believe there are some questions lingering, but I also have come to the conclusion that yes we did land on the moon. And also have come to the conclusion that there are many people who would like to profit from the speculation that we did'nt land on the moon.

But I believe the initial question had been answered. Yes that image you showed in your first post was indeed modified.

What the reflection in the helmet is, I don't know for certain.

I'm sorry if you are on the "we did'nt land on the moon" bandwagon, but if you do your own unbiased research, you will find the truth. Many of the proponents of the hoax theory have been thoroughly discredited and debunked.

If you really must know what those reflections are showing, call or write to NASA and ask them.




posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
A variety of experiments were set up on the moon. If you look at some of the images in the apollo 11 photo archive, you will see several apparatuses mounted to a pole stuck into the surface of the moon. That is the most likely explanation of the two bright spots on the helmet. If it were a spotlight, the glare would be much more pronounced, producing a flare effect.

apollo 11 photos

Most notably:

AS11-40-5931 on the right lower part of image.
AS11-40-5873 center of image.
AS11-40-5948 to the left of module. And to the right of Aldrin.
AS11-40-5961 to the right of module.

More images here:

www.apolloarchive.com...

[edit on 12/13/2006 by Mechanic 32]

[edit on 12/13/2006 by Mechanic 32]



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by DrLeary
 


Can't anybody do even a little research before jumping off the deep end?

The two objects reflected in Buzz's visor are the solar wind collector and the American flag.

A closer examination of a high quality original shows that the reflection of the earth is also visible in Buzz's visor, nearly at the top center.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DrLeary
 


Go look at the original version, AS11-40-5903HR. The fiduciary marks are all there, including that one. If it was removed, it wasn't from the original.

You can hardly blame NASA for what others do to their pictures.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Or MAYBE...Stay with me on this...
Maybe they just airbrushed out all the Crosses because it makes for a nicer desktop backround
MAYBE its just not a massive conspiracy and just NASA's attepmt to make an image look nicer for people to set as their desktop backround



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

This looks like cut & paste to me as there is two croshairs on top of eachother

Dude, its the camera used. Its not a 'cut and paste'. Cut and paste didn't exist when those photos were made.


What?!

Of course it did and well before then.

The technique was not as sophisticated and there were various ways of pulling off a cut or a paste (retouching, using cuts of photo's and negatives) but certainly cutting and pasting was done to photo and film in the late 60's. For all intents and purposes the result was similar to that of a Photoshop job.

Here's a method used for a "cut" as early as the 1920's.




Joseph Stalin made use of photo retouching for propaganda purposes.[2] On May 5, 1920 his predecessor Lenin held a speech for Soviet troops that Leon Trotsky attended. Stalin had Trotsky retouched out of a photograph showing Trotsky in attendance. Nikolai Yezhov, an NKVD leader photographed alongside Stalin in at least one photograph, was shot in 1940 and subsequently edited out of the photograph. Wiki


It didn't exist in the terms you are thinking but a few methods that would achieve the same results existed nonetheless. It would have been possible to use such a method on any of those photos at the time.

Not sure if they were manipulated though.

- Lee



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


Let's find out if it was manipulated. The first thing any researcher should do is look to the original source. The image posted by the OP is obviously not the original image, it's filled with text, borders, and other modifications. Somewhere in doing all of that they may have left behind sloppy artifacts of the editing that the OP found. Here's a true original scan, at full res and completely untouched:
history.nasa.gov...
Are the reseau plate markings still showing signs of duplication? No. There were other less-obvious signs of alterations in the OP's image, such as the missing PLSS antenna, that are commonly found in secondary reproductions of this image. All the issues are resolved by just looking at the original image and understanding that the objects seen next to neil are surface experiments (and I think the flag may be visible as well).

[edit on 4-8-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
As ngchunter stated, what is the purpose in analyzing 2nd and 3rd party photos...most of the anomalies mentioned by supposed Moon Hoax researchers don't show up in the original (and publicly available) NASA photos.

This reminds me of a recent thread here in which a video by the relatively well-known Moon Hoax researcher Marcus Allen was discussed.

In that video Mr. Allen was showing anomalies he found in photos from the book "Full Moon". It was obvious that the photos in that book were airbrushed and cropped together to present a terrific view of the Moon. Of course the publishers of this "coffee table book" would do this to make their book look good in order to sell more books -- and there's nothing wrong with that.

However, Mr. Allen was pointing to the anamolies in this book as evidence of a moon hoax. All he had to do was look at the original and publicly availabel (in fact internet-available) original NASA photos to see that these anomalies did not exist and were just a function of the publisher of "Full Moon" trying to make the photos look better.

Here is my post in that thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The bottom line (to reiterate what ngchunter stated) is that if someone wants to analyze the moon photos, they should analyze the NASA originals, not some 2nd or 3rd party images.



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
It could be that its just too far for the flash on the camera to have an effect. A flash isn't allways going to be able to illuminate everything or cast a shadow.

There was no flash, ever, only the Sun. More than bright enough as it is.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join