Nasa Apollo Moon pictures take a bath

I hope this is an appropriate forum for this post.

This is just one example of the differences from an older to the newer
HQ scans. The picture here is AS11-40-5903.
The left side comes from a picture with a timestamp of 09-17-03.
The right side, being the latest HQ scan, has a timestamp of 07-09-04.

The new picture may be just a boost of gamma, and although parts of the foreground are more clear, part of the background appears more blurry.
Also note that the new scan is tilted slightly to the right.

It is easier to see the differences if you cut the picture into two separate
pictures, and then A/B them.

Which photo is more true to the original?

A few questions:

Can you post a link to the source photos?

Where are you seeing the timestamp?

Why are your photos cropped so tight on Buzz?

Is there anything special you want to point out here?



EDIT: to add photo source... images.ksc.nasa.gov...


[edit on 21-6-2007 by Zarniwoop]

the new scan has rebalanced the light to make the source look a lot more universal than the earlier 2. zarniwoops image frankly looks like an actor standing in a spotlight. the new scan has an obvious photochop where the blue streak reflecting from the face shield into space abruptly ends as though a large section was just clumsily cut out.

Why is the shadow of the subject bigger(taller) than the other astronaut a few meters away? Wasn't the only source of light the sun? To me this looks like studio lighting. Anyone else see this?

awesome point, and to test it out i just took a spanner into a darkened room and shone a keychain light onto it. the closer the light to the subject the further the shadow was cast. to me this is indicating that indeed the subject in the photo seems a lot closer to the lighting source than the photographer, even taking into account the fisheye effect of his helmet.

Thats what I thought!!!....Man they were sloppy when they faked the moon landing All I have to say is Van Allen Radiation Belt!!! We are suckers.

I don't think these are the same photo.

This isn't an actor, he gives me the feeling of a manikin holding the exact same pose for a long series of photos, of which these are only two. They have a camera on a tripod, or a rig or some sort and they are trying different lighting configurations with him. The visor image is put in later. This is evident by the false angle of the shadow and they way the image in the visor neglects to show the reflection in the very bottom part.

It looks to me as though they didn’t like the first take so they threw some concrete powder on him and changed the light, to make him look dirtier. Perhaps more real.

All in all there is absolutely zero chance this was actually taken on the moon. The light source is artificial, you can see that from the non-uniform intensity. You should also get solar reflection from that visor because the light falls on the helmet above the visor almost half way to the middle. So definitely the visor image is photo-shopped in.

This is a really good find (there being two images of it) because now it really lends itself to being studio made.

Again we will never know if the moon landings were faked, I have looked into this for many years and sadly there is not a smoking gun out there!

video.google.com...
Now I thought this was the smoking gun!!!!



[edit on 21-6-2007 by IMAdamnALIEN]

I don't mean to derail the conspiracy here, but the image on the right is cgi. I can't remember who did it, but it's someone Springer knows--you can U2U him if you doubt it or want to know who it is. Nothing to do with NASA though. I know where I first saw this--in one of the C2C drone threads--and I don't want to wade through all that just to identify the artist.

Something else I notice about this classic photo.

Look very closely at the visor. Where is the light source, as depicted in the visor, coming from? Its coming from behind the astronaut who is framed. And yet the light source is clearly coming from the right of the picture. So which one is it?

An obvious Photoshop job: the visor is not part of the original image.

Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
Thats what I thought!!!....Man they were sloppy when they faked the moon landing

All I have to say is Van Allen Radiation Belt!!! We are suckers.

What about them? As long as they don't go through them at the equatorial region, they aren't nearly as dangerous to go through as long as you don't stay in them for a long period of time. That's why they don't launch probes, or put satellites in equatorial orbit.

Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
Why is the shadow of the subject bigger(taller) than the other astronaut a few meters away? Wasn't the only source of light the sun? To me this looks like studio lighting. Anyone else see this?

You have to take into account things like terrain, height difference etc. If one of them is standing on a slight rise, his shadow will be shorter than the other. Conversely if one is standing where it starts to drop, his shadow will be longer than the other.

Van Allen Belt:

Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.

Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

www.clavius.org...

[edit on 6/21/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What about them? As long as they don't go through them at the equatorial region, they aren't nearly as dangerous to go through as long as you don't stay in them for a long period of time. That's why they don't launch probes, or put satellites in equatorial orbit.
[edit on 6/21/2007 by Zaphod58]

Would it surprise you to know that there are a limited number of 'trajectories' through which one can successfully figure-8 the Moon?

How do you know there is one through the thinnest areas of the VA belt? Are you suggesting that those missions did plot that trajectory and we just didn't know it, or are you saying they messed up and just went through them willy-nilly?

Don't mean to be confrontational, I'm just asking.

You know I never really paid attention or noticed this before.. but the reflected shadow.. supposedly taking the picture looks like they have their hands up to their face.. as if .. holding a camera to their eye.. or.. visor.. to take the picture.. If this was a chest mounted camera wouldnt their hands be either at their chest or down by their side? Not up around their face?

I could be wrong.. its just what I see though

I know there are only so many trajectories you can use. NASA did a series of tests on the belts figuring out where the radiation was the worst, what kind of radiation it was, etc. They needed to find out about the belts, for Space Lab, and for long term habitation in space. They had a general idea of the effects of going through the belts, and planned to make the exposure as fast as possible. They developed a dosimeter for use on Apollo to check their exposure. The highest exposure was Apollo 14, which was exposed to 1.14 rads. From Apollo 11 on it went anywhere from a low of 0.18 to the high of 1.14. Well within the safe range of exposure.

history.nasa.gov...

[edit on 6/21/2007 by Zaphod58]

The shadow is longer due to the curve of the visor. Watch the feet of the Lunar Module, it appears to be twice as long as the feet behind it. Also the terrain can make a very different shadow.

Originally posted by Cygnific
The shadow is longer due to the curve of the visor. Watch the feet of the Lunar Module, it appears to be twice as long as the feet behind it. Also the terrain can make a very different shadow.

I agree with this assessment. I was just about to post the same.
I think is is very difficut to reach any conclusions based on the trajectory or orientation of shadows. There are just too many variables.

Did you miss my light source comment?

Look at the visor again. Very carefully. Where is the light source that is casting the shadow as seen in the visor? The light source in the visor is directly behind the astronaut. Now stop looking at the visor and pretend it isn’t there. Where is the light source in the overall photo? Coming from the right, not from behind as shown in the visor.

The MAIN light source was the sun, however the moon, LEM, and space suits were all reflectors, that reflected enough light to cast shadows.

Zaphod, if that was true there would have been multiple shadows cast.

Think about it.

I was going to mention this yesterday or the day before, but I didn't take much notice to it.

The lighting and shadows don't match up.

Either they did a really bad job editing these photos or they really were taken on the Earth.



HOWEVER,

I do not doubt we ever made it to the moon.

These ones just happen to be "fakes."


I want to make a point of Yandros' picture 2 posts up.

If there was a shadow in front of Buzz, why is there no light source behind him (not in this photo anyway)?

If the sun is to his left, why is his shadow not casting to the right?

Seems to me there's some funky things going on.

[edit on 21-6-2007 by biggie smalls]