NASA Exposed! Fake Moon Images?

reply to post by ngchunter


Here's a link of an example that I found:


Here's another:


Do you see any stars? I do.

[edit on 24-4-2009 by Zeus2573]

[edit on 24-4-2009 by Zeus2573]

Originally posted by Zeus2573
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Here's a link of an example that I found:

The daylight part of the moon is so overexposed it's washed out and the earthshine looks like it's completely properly exposed. That is NOT a daylight setting on that camera, and that's just proving the point. To get the stars you have to completely overexpose the daylit moon. To further prove the point, here's another example of an overexposed moon with properly exposed earthshine where the exif data is available:
www.flickr.com...
www.flickr.com...
1 second exposure at ISO 800. That's NOT equivalent to shooting daylight exposure settings required to get proper pictures of things on the daylit moon.

Here's another:

Do you see any stars? I do.

LOL, the second one is obviously a composite image, it's as good as fake.

*Oh look, indeed it's not even a hidden fact that it's a composite:
apod.nasa.gov...

[edit on 24-4-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter


You got me. I surrender! I will have to admit that second one that I was so quick include (the composite) was pretty funny now that you brought out the truth about it.

Great research, I'm giving you a star.

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by mahtoosacks
now if these artifacts showed up in any one single image, then yes... scream insanity, but these are two photos put together at the edges. there are pretty decent programs that do this mostly successful. nothing beats an actual artist in creating them however.

Agreed! So these could most likely be two images stitched together. But those clones being only in a few areas and not along or across the entire image was what created the doubt.

So how about these two images, the second with the missing rock?

Cheers!

The rock is not shown in the 2nd picture because it is out of view. The 2nd picture is closer to the mountain in the background than in the 1st picture.

Well I got a reply from the Lunar and Planetary Institute. The panorama's were stitched together by hand with Adobe Photoshop.

Originally posted by spitefulgod
I don't see an issue, it's a stitched image, meaning several images have been stitched together to create the final image, even with modern techniques you still get overlaps. I was slightly excited then until someone pointed out it was a composed panoramic image.

If it was simply because of stitching, then why images are scaled to give a sense of perspective? it was done on purpose, it was not an accident.

Originally posted by masterp
If it was simply because of stitching, then why images are scaled to give a sense of perspective?

Scaled? What do you mean?

Originally posted by masterp

The rock is not shown in the 2nd picture because it is out of view. The 2nd picture is closer to the mountain in the background than in the 1st picture.

Nope! If you analyse the images carefully, you'd notice that the the second image has been taken from FARTHER BACK! Therefore the mystery of the missing stone remains!

Cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh


Mike, might I suggest taking those two pictures and flashing them back and forth.

IF you try that, you will clearly see how the perspective of the distant hills change.

I wish I had the expertise to use some sort of visual aid...I don't even have programs for it! But, I can use my two eyes, and the gray matter in my skull.

Using words, let's imagine this: One Astronaut remains at the LRV....the other hops some meters away, snaps a picture. Now, he translates perpendicularly to his original direction, as he left the LRV....and, careful to frame the shot so that the LRV isn't seen again (as it is superfluous) snaps another picture.

A careful look at eh distant hills shows the change in perspective quite clearly. Sure, a quick glance, they look 'identical'....BUT, on closer inspection, there are subtle differences.....

Heck! Anyone could do something similar, here on Earth. When I take a picture, I get yelled at because I will move forward, move backward....shift left or right, all while trying to frame the shot....and the people (if it's a portrait) get tired of waiting. If a big rock is in the foreground, and I don't want it there, I pan up, or walk forward a little.

OR, maybe having the big rock in the foreground was INTENTIONAL, for some perspective, absent any Earthly references....

[edit on 4/25/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by hmmmbeer




You have got to be kidding me, you're the one that refuses to believe that by 2009 we haven't even left the Earth and landed on our own moon but yet you tell US to open our minds and become free?


Please.

reply to post by hmmmbeer


I am constantly amused by the ability of a bloke from 'down-under' who has the 'Chutzpah' to come to a forum and spout such nonsense.

Especially when the post by this most-esteemed 'fellow' is completely off the mark, as if the rest of the thread had not been read.

It is the typical "swoop-in" attack....goes like this: Firstly, read the OP....then, click to the last post, pay no attention to what's been written, drop your ridiculous opinion (being sure to stray off-topic) then leave.

Sad........

reply to post by mikesingh


Nope. The second image is taken from 500 meters to the west of the first. Both images are looking south. It is taken from the side, not behind. The boulder in the first image is out of the field of view to the right.

First panorama is from Station 6, the second from Station 7.



[edit on 4/25/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Phage....!!!!!

You are brilliant....are you a Wizard??

Thanks for the 'aerial' view....man!!!! It's exactly what I needed!!!!

Best, WW

*edit*....because there are lots of Americans in the audience, I will take one moment....

"500 metres" is equivalent to 1633 feet (39.2 inches/metre) Or, about 0.31 SM (Statute Miles)....or, 0.27 NM (Nautical Miles).

If you've ever been to Manhattan, NY....then you'd know that the 'short blocks' equal about 20 per 'mile' (SM). SO....

To make it relevant to Earth-bound references....the '500 metres' is like walking less than 7 'short-blocks' in Manhattan.

Hope this helps people to comprehend, even a little bit.....

[edit on 4/25/0909 by weedwhacker]

My guess is they did it to draw in more interest from a new generation of conspiracy theorists in a hope to fade out the old (educated) ones. We either know to much or they're not doing their jobs!

Originally posted by mikesingh
Nope! If you analyse the images carefully, you'd notice that the the second image has been taken from FARTHER BACK! Therefore the mystery of the missing stone remains!

Cheers!

Stone still there. Stone just farther away. Stone smaller now.

Note that that the stone on the left is still in the picture too. Just smaller. The lower shot is taken from farther away from the hills than the first one. No mystery, just failure to look at the whole picture and instead focusing on a (hoped for) anomaly.

reply to post by Gawdzilla
That was my thoughts in a
post back a bit.Still can't figure why NASA would want to
create collages of the other pictures though,
I don't think they would be daft enough to think that no one
would notice them,like the OP and others have done.

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

That was my thoughts in a
post back a bit.Still can't figure why NASA would want to
create collages of the other pictures though,
I don't think they would be daft enough to think that no one
would notice them,like the OP and others have done.

Gunny #3 used to slap us on the back of the head, "Never assume your opponent is stupid!"

In other words, until I know they did something for a sneaky reason and made it obvious, I'll consider that there's a good explanation that doesn't require them to be nefarious.

reply to post by Gawdzilla
HI Gawd,
maybe I should have said,
"My thoughts in a post I made a while back"
anyway,I'm still thinking about the other pics
and why create a collage repeating the same objects?
and doing it again in different pics?
it just doesn't make any sense
someones going to see it in the long run,
and they have.
I don't think photoshop errors come into it,
maybe someone working on the phtos
was having a laugh...who knows!

Actually, in the 2nd picture, the rock is still there, in the far right.

Originally posted by masterp
Actually, in the 2nd picture, the rock is still there, in the far right.

Hmmm! The rock on the far right as compared to the one under investigation is below:



The rock on the far right...


Courtesy Jo Skipper

Cheers!