[Busted] NASA caught faking Gemini-10 Spacewalk Photos?

reply to post by bad man incorporated


To make a composite image then was nothing like today. You literally had to cut out the part you wanted to overlay, paste it over a print and then take a new shot of the overlayed image. This left an obvious edge on the cutout that had to be airbrushed.

The easiest way to spot one, even with quality airbrushing would be the shadows not matching as well as they should and the edges being to sharp or to blended.

Now as you know, you can even change perspective and shadows easily. That was not possible then.

[edit on 7/16/2009 by Blaine91555]

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by internos

 

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1d27dbbb9b8d.jpg[/atsimg]

I did a direct overlay before I noticed your animation. Same results. Close but no cigar. They don't match.

Hey umm....you did not rotate the overlaying image, that is why your presentation is incorrect. As a previous poster said, you gotta rotate about 5-8 degrees for a perfect match. Rest assured, these are 2 images of the same.

Mine appears to move only slightly because I did not rotate exact enough to get a pixel on pixel overlay, however....I think it is very clear these are the same image. I will spend more time with it to do a better job if you are still not certain.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2301574464ab.gif[/atsimg]


Just on a side note....the odds of putting on his suit and putting on those straps and getting in the exact position like that got to be a 1,000,000,000 to 1.

I could see maybe getting in the exact same position, but there's no way he's gonna get each of those straps in the same exact spot as before...There's no way

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Overload]

reply to post by Blaine91555

Actually, not all that different from digital techniques. There are other ways than physically cutting the image. When making a print from a negative (or a transparency) an area is masked so that the photographic paper is not exposed. Then, the desired area from another negative is vignetted onto the print in the area which was masked. It's sort of an after-the-fact double exposure. The size of the overlay can be varied by the enlarger as well, creating perspective changes. With skillful dodging and burning it can be difficult (but not impossible) to detect.

[edit on 7/16/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Overload



Just on a side note....the odds of putting on his suit and putting on those straps and getting in the exact position like that got to be a 1,000,000,000 to 1.

I could see maybe getting in the exact same position, but there's no way he's gonna get each of those straps in the same exact spot as before...There's no way

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Overload]

1,000,000,000 to 1? Where did that ratio come from?
he probably practiced that mission, that many times, before doing it.

I do admit, the "rotated" overlay looks pretty good. But if you watch even the latest failed attempts of the space shuttle to take off, when they were "gearing" up, everything goes in the exact same spot.
I'd love to get some of those images and post them here. Sadly, I'm at work and my internet time is monitored. haha.

I just think of it, because each time they showed on the news that the shuttle was delayed, I thought I was watching the same footage as the last delay. haha.

But yeah, thanks for answering. Everything does seem pretty exact.

Originally posted by noangels
Just googling nasa fakes came up with an interesting site,had a brief look and there are some good photos there.will read it all in more depth later


nasascam.bravehost.com...

Like his comment, "The only substance that would leave footprints showing that boldly would be damp sand, and that's what it probably is."

Before diving into the site, ask yourself -- what is the intelligence level he's aiming his claims at. If you think you qualify, by all means, dive in.

There can be simply no debate, especially when you see the blacked and unblacked versions of the flipped image side by side.

It is fake, edited to show something that didn't happen in those pictures.

But as mentioned before me, we should find out where, when and if this ever even was done by NASA.

Where and when did they release this photograph with information about Gemini-10?

[edit on 16-7-2009 by BaronVonGodzilla]

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by noangels
Just googling nasa fakes came up with an interesting site,had a brief look and there are some good photos there.will read it all in more depth later


nasascam.bravehost.com...

Like his comment, "The only substance that would leave footprints showing that boldly would be damp sand, and that's what it probably is."

Before diving into the site, ask yourself -- what is the intelligence level he's aiming his claims at. If you think you qualify, by all means, dive in.

Ahhh...Jim...thanks for the laugh....your insults amuse me greatly....


As for the other poster..(bad man).A trillion to one just sounded good
I do know what you mean, practicing and practicing day in and day out, routine over routine over routine.

I would very much like to see some of those images you are talking about, And I'm willing to bet money on the fact that you will not be able to overlay any of those images and come up with such a good match as the one here.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
This will break the hearts of ArMap and Phage!

Speaking for myself (as always), you may be sure that it will not break my heart.

They are insanely trusting of NASA and go to extraordinary lengths to defend NASA from those of us who believe they are manipulating images and lieing through their nose.

No, and if you have read some of my posts you have noticed that.

First, maybe because I am not from the USA, I don't think NASA is the "All Time Great Space Authority", as many people seem to think, they are just one large government related organisation, with all the goods and bads of organisations like that.

Second, I saw once a photo on a NASA site that was clearly manipulated (and that, after being exposed on ATS, was replaced), what I always say (and will say until proved wrong) is that I have never seen a (visibly) manipulated image on scientific sites, but what we see on public relations sites (the most visited) is not treated in the same way, the images are frequently changed to more "photogenic" versions.

Third, I have seen high resolution TIFF images disappear from a NASA server and being replaced by lower resolution JPEG images while I was in the process of downloading them.

So no, I do not trust NASA "insanely", I do not even trust my eyes "insanely", much less a foreign organisation.

Freely admitting that Phage and ArMap are both highly knowledgable in this subject it will be interesting to see what they have to say about this?

The photos in the OP are clearly the same, with the one from the book mirrored and with the background removed, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that type of work on a "public relations" NASA page, although I think they would probably refrain from calling it a space walk, I have noticed that the manipulated photos usually do not have an accompanying text reflecting what we are pushed to think by looking at them (probably that way it is easier to deny they said that, they really did not say it, they imply it, like the case I talked about on the top of this post).

Originally posted by bad man incorporated
Firstly, what were the methods of manipulating photos in the 60's?

The manual methods of manipulation were already very advanced in the 60's (photography was already more than 100 years old), and in the worst case complete areas of the photos can be recreated by using very fine brushes with black ink and very sharp pointed knifes to remove the dark emulsion from the photos (or vice versa if used on the negative), so anything could (and can) be done in conventional (chemical) photography in a lab.

I'm going to echo Ignorant Ape, since he seems to have been ignored (though this should be no surprise):

Show us a caption, some us something, anything where NASA is claiming this is a shot from the Gemini-10 space walk. Can this be produced? Let's see some actual evidence that NASA faked this, that NASA was promoted this as real, instead of the usual lies, misquotes and equivocations we get from Exuberant, Fran and the like.

And Chadwickus was right; the title should be changed. The question mark is meaningless when it is prefaced by the [BUSTED].

reply to post by JimOberg


I have had a good chance to look at that site in detail,and have to say the photos included are very good.I think he should behave in a more mature way as it tarnishes the site and gives the other side a free and easy cheap shot in his direction

Taking that issue aside,and looking at all the pages there it does bring into question the moon landings.

reply to post by Overload


You are right. I still do not get an exact match, but I'd concede that is likely to be from a slight difference in the ratio when published. Perhaps even the laptop monitor I'm on. The ratio could be off enough as it relates to height and width to cause what I'm seeing.

If true I'd guess it was not done to mislead but as a convenience not as an intentional hoax. I doubt orders come down from upon high to fake all the moon photo's. If that were truly the case, smoking guns would be popping up all over the place. Those moon images seem to be disseminated far and wide.

If wrong I certainly apologize. I've become jaded on this. When I first came to ATS it was with the enthusiasm of a believer and all the fakes and phoniness has changed my attitude greatly.

I will never buy into the we did not land on the moon nonsense. I'll also always doubt those who publish the tapes and books on this topic believe it either.

One of my clearest memories was sitting with my Father watching him as he watched the broadcast from the Moon. For a man who grew up herding cattle on horseback in an isolated part of Utah, the importance of that moment can not be overstated. He would not even let me go to school so I watched every moment and sleep be damned.

I'm wandering, sorry

reply to post by noangels

No.
The author of the website speaks nonsense, beginning with his first claim about using the metric system. The Apollo missions were scientific expeditions. Geologists, as well as other scientists, use the metric system. The only time the imperial system is used is for public relations, so we backward Americans can relate to the units being used.

reply to post by Phage


The only time I saw that actually done was in a photo lab in school. Simply airbrushing was the path of least resistance. Not to mention nobody was actually trying to hide the fact it was done. It was more of a novelty.

Originally posted by BaronVonGodzilla
But as mentioned before me, we should find out where, when and if this ever even was done by NASA.

Where and when did they release this photograph with information about Gemini-10?

Without an answer to that question, this topic doesn't really merit any further discussion, does it? Sorry if anyone answered that, I missed it too, please point it out.

reply to post by ArMaP


Actually the work was better as it was more of an art.

Another method I failed to mention was using prints at poster size to do the work from. The reduction in size to the working print hid a lot of the imperfections. One of the great things about film that is lacking in digital is the continuous color and the crispness of the image even blown up to poster size prints.

Unless the shots were carefully crafted to precisely match the light source and shadows however, most were discernible.

My interest in photograph in those days was fleeting and my time was spent more on developing my interest in art. I found quickly that painting or drawing images from my mind was more satisfying and photography only again became interesting with this digital imaging. Nearly all my photo's these days are a combination of CG mixed with photo's. Only now can we take a photo and change the weather, the lighting and environment to suit the vision.

I'm off on a tangent again, sorry.

reply to post by Exuberant1

[Busted] NASA caught faking Gemini-10 Spacewalk Photos?

I was alive and living only a few dozen miles from the Cape during the 1960s. As a youth, I followed every launch. In fact, some I could actually see from my front porch step.

Now, I understand that this does not in itself rule out any chicanery but still and all... I just have never been able to bring myself to believe that NASA was faking things prior to the Apollo missions.

That being said though, I do see evidence that images of the lunar surface have been altered/air brushed and I personally believe that there is much more on the moon that we are allowed to know.

Merely applying what I consider to me just a little horse logic and common sense seems enough to set aside the rest of it. We DID go the moon... astronauts then and today walk and work in space and our spacecraft are not made of styrofoam.

My two pennies, for what it means to anyone.

...

Why would they fake this spacewalk photo....

I'm not exactly sure who you mean when you say "they". As in the author, or publisher, or NASA, or government,????

If this image truly is a fake....just imagine the implications.

Well, it truly is a fake, but from whom....

I understand what you mean, but other than this coming out of collins book, and the publisher or editor or both just trying to make a few bucks, I don't think there is much to implicate.

Of course, I could be wrong but I didn't find anything (5 minute search) that said NASA released these as a "Space walk".

But none the less, a good find, and good detective work

reply to post by Phage



I thought he was pissing in the wind with the metric system to be honest!

I take it you guys know the author of that site?

With NASA taping over the original moon landing footage and digitaly remastering another version,it shows they have been pulling the wool over the entire worlds eyes for 40 years and more

OK people, I have heard so much bildge of faking the moon landing, and just about about everything else that had do with the American space program, I have to make a few comments on how things worked in those days. We were in a political, quasi-military race with the Russians. This was very serious stuff. The Russians were going to use a cobbled together N-1 rocket and we had the advantage of the Saturn-5. I can't recall the exact number but the N-1 used a HUGE number of smaller, very complex, (meaning by way of numbers hard to control) rockets At least one we know of blew up on the pad, and it was quite the light show. The Russians admitted years later they would have given their left male intrument to have just a piece of Saturn-5 technology. By the way the Gemini would have been among the most basic to track, because they were designed to practice orbital docking. Nice and simple and very predictable.

Keeping in mind our satalite technology( and theirs) was still very primitive in the 1960's. They had ground based radio-telescope and optics looking at everything we did. The reason was simple: we or any one else did want to "loose" one of our spacecraft. Not just us but the western world and beyond. Most important with 1/6 of the Earths land mass, the USSR had a vast number of stations tracking everything we, and I mean everything we did. Not just that but had a large number (12-to-16 fully ocean going "spy") ships to fill any gapps. The technology of the day needed overlapping coverage. No problem.

The point of all this? ANYONE in the USSR who found the evidence we were being fast and lose would have been an instant hero of the Soviet Union. What do you think was the reaction to the (I think SA-2 anti-aircraft battery) missle crew who shot down Gary Powers? This was really big stuff. (I have heard rumors the U-2 had an exposive device placed some where on the U-2 prior to its take-off in Turkey. From the intell. people I have spoken to who know more in this area, say its LESS THEN AT MOST a 5% probability) In truth a modified SA-2 or 3 could have reached at altitude the U-2, the course of which they had been tracking for at least 2 years. Mabey even an SA-1 with boosters. Heads rolled in the USSR when they continued to be unable to shoot down us over, not just near their airspace.

Along more interesting lines, there seems to have been a rash of UFO sightings among many of our civil and most likely military spacecraft. Don't know what it is, but boy has it's gotten our attention, as well as others. Some of this has started to come out in the media over the last year or so. In a persistant manner.

And if anyone wants to know a very nice piece of USSR "space" trivia, the first, Yuri Gagarin ejected from his his Vostock space craft BEFORE it landed in the USSR, in violation of the international rules to be first in space. The whole things mute, sad to say he tried fly a MIG while drunk, killed himself. This is public record, mabey 15-20 years ago, not sure,but it happend. What a waste to die like that.





Point is the US space program was no fake, and every one watched very, very carefully. Dose the US have a covert, military space program, mabey others? No doubt at all, started full bore with the late 1950's X-15 program, and has never stopped. Thats were the action is...