Apollo Hardware Spotted!, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 55 times


reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 06:29 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by wylekat


Actually I believe Pixar has the cutting edge. I'm fairly sure. There are a few 3d CG artists on here including myself.


reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 06:29 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by wylekat


Saw your work previously, impressive.

However, humor someone who doesn't know squat about image manipulation and 3D creations....wouldn't yours be seen as 'artificial' if looked at closely by someone such as yourself? I mean, with the same expertise?

Also...can't people tell when PhotoShop has been used? Aren't there codes? "Ghosts in the Machine" type of things?!???

[edit on 17 July 2009 by weedwhacker]


reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 06:49 PM by wylekat
reply to post by weedwhacker


Well- I'll let other people pick out a couple botched spots in it... I made a couple of 'craters' that werent exactly according to nature- and the thing in the crater's an obvious 'thing'. The craters- I am SURE when someone decides to grab the original moon pic and overlay it, not a single thing's gonna be accurate placement wise. I took pains however to 'erase' the little stepped edges you get in some 3d stuff (like any 3d games- when something's supposed to be round, and it's got those little triangles all across the edge). Gaussian blur in Photoshop and antialias in Gimp are my 2 bestest friends. Oh... and remember, that isn't photoshop. It's a program that does actual 3d stuff (think Toy Story).

I'm not good at explaining stuff- you can usually tell if something's been photoshopped tho because the pixels don't line up, or they missed a piece of the image they used for the fakery... I have another pic I did as a fun thing for someone's amusement- the "Face" on Mars (If you're an A Team fan.... you'll get the pic). I'm just putting in the link to it, since I don't want to turn this into an art show. Face on Mars Have a look, and you should see what's been touched up, stuff I missed erasing completely, blurriness that doesn't match up elsewhere- the fact I used 2 diff resolution pics to make it. And the stupid faint, thin halo around the head...

And even when a pic has been touched up to the point where on the surface, your eyes initially accept what they see- your subconscious will always go "waitaminit, here...."- There's ALWAYS imperfections, no matter how good a pic might look. Have a look at Worth1000 some time for photoshop madness. Also- find some bad photoshopping that has been done- you'll be able to ease yourself into spotting fakes better and better from looking at them.

BTW- there are 'codes' that an exif reader can show, occasionally even with certain programs that 'read' the picture data. However, I think sometimes, even THOSE can be faked.....



[edit on 17-7-2009 by wylekat]


reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 07:05 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by wylekat


I think that is the most convincing proof of the face on Mars I've ever seen

We need plenty of experienced people around here as I'm sure you have noticed. What one person does not catch in an image, another does.

I keep watching for Marvin the Martian in the images, but so far no joy.

On topic -

I heard on a news program not to long ago that as high as 6% or more of Americans believe we did not land on the Moon. I had no idea it was that high. It does show the power of marketing by the producers of the films and publishers of the books.

Wikipedia on the topic.
A 1999 poll by The Gallup Organization found that 89% of the US public believed the landings were genuine, while 6% did not, and 5% were undecided



reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 07:16 PM by ngchunter
Originally posted by dampnickers
Absolute rot!

Did you miss the Apollo Mission 101 back at the beginning?

When the mission was in the initial investigation stages probes were sent that took high resolution images of the surface and beamed them back to Ground Control. These pictures were then printed out on massive sheets of photographic paper and laid out on the floor of a warehouse (there are a number of archive photos of Apollo scientists working on smaller ones too).

I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't matter how big you can print something out. The full resolution uncropped images of these landings sites could also make for gigantic prints, but the spatial resolution is still 1m/pixel. The size of a print is not a measure of spatial resolution of the instrument taking the picture. Size of the print without blowing it up is also determined by field of view and magnification. LRO is getting better spatial resolution than previous lunar orbiters did before apollo.

These photos were cutting edge technology back then, and weren't digital as they are today... Are you seriously telling me that they haven't improved things in the last 40 years?

Are you seriously telling me that the ability to make huge prints corresponds to spatial resolution? Cause you'd be wrong about that. Things have improved vastly in the last 40 years; these images are FAR high quality than even the new digital restorations of the old Lunar Orbiter images.

The military tells us that they have been able to read newpapers from 150 miles away for over a decade... and you still think that NASA doesn't have that kind of technology at its diposal?

It's one thing to have a telescope that big, it's quite another thing to put it into lunar orbit. Spy sats capable of that kind of resolution are the size of school buses and have a mass 14 times that of LRO. "You're going to need a bigger boat," or in this case, rocket. In fact, you may as well send a small manned mission to the moon at that point, because you're basically going to need an Ares V to do the job anyway.

Are you mad?

No, but I think you could afford to spend a little more time studying the basics of photography and interplanetary probes.

Are you telling me that NASA haven't thought to spend a few extra dollars on getting the best bang for their buck?

Hate to break it to you, but this IS the best bang for the buck.

Either something is wrong, or you are nuts to believe such crap images as these!

Nothing's wrong, you just have unreleastic expectations and preconceptions based on earth orbital satellites as opposed to interplanetary probes.


reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 07:19 PM by obilesk
reply to post by Blaine91555


Yes. You and I are not "rocket scientists" lol (at least I know I'm not - sorry if you actually are )

Maybe there are technical reasons that we cannot know about unless we did the stuff for a living. But, as far as I know, there shouldn't be any insurmountable reason for us to not have perfectly clear, low orbit pictures!

It really is frustrating.


reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 07:23 PM by wylekat
reply to post by Blaine91555


I aimed to please . There were a couple of things that began to sway me away from the possibility of 'we landed on the moon'- but one thing that swayed me back was that jackass who got punched out by Neil Armstrong. a) he was well over the top, and the look on Armstrong's face said it all: " I went to the moon, moron. What more do you want?!"
My moments of fuzziness were the Japanese moon pics. Supposedly high def, ect- and I couldn't find so much as a pinprick that looked like a lander. Turns out THOSE are 3d rendered, for whatever insane reason.... Used the data, made cute little 3d models out of it.


reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 07:24 PM by Xtraeme
Originally posted by kiwifoot
reply to post by Kandinsky

...

If those images of the same quality wee waved around as 'proof' of a UFO would you blindly believe it or ask question?

...


You just gave me a rather ingenious idea. Next time I get into an argument with a stonewall debunker I'm going to ask, "Do you agree that extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence?"

Assuming the person says "yes" I'll then follow it up with, "So do you believe the pictures of the Apollo landing sites, from the LRO mission, provide extraordinary proof that the moon missions actually occurred or should we remain skeptical that we ever landed on the moon?"

Thank you for proving the point that "extraordinary claims" are nothing but a value judgment.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Xtraeme]



reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 07:25 PM by wookiee
Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by thedangler


I just looked at the photos and did the same thing...why is the sun reflecting on the lander in the opposite direction that the sun is shining on the terrain? The shadows go two different ways.


Just a WAG.
One direction is from the Sun
The other is Earth Light.


reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 07:45 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by obilesk


I do a lot of photography and I own professional equiptment but that is totally unrelated to this.

I suspect the problem to be lens size. I can shoot a clear shot of a car from about 1,000 yards with a 1,000mm lens and an exstention tube, but it requires a lot of light and no motion on top of the extremely limiting size of the lens. To shoot in motion in low light and get any good results would require a very large lens. My first guess is that is the issue.

Perhaps that would be great question to ask of Nasa through an email?

[edit on 7/17/2009 by Blaine91555]


reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 07:46 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by wylekat



Yeah, I remember seeing that on the news. I almost cheered.
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^