[Busted] NASA Tries to Conceal Lunar Structures?

My question is why did they alter the photo's in the first place, obviously we were going to ask questions about it right?

Does the cameraman suck?... he is an astronaut but he cant take decent photo's with the right exposure?

They have the technology to get onto the moon but use crappy cameras to document the trip?

So in other words they knew more about space, rockets, and the moon than they did about cameras?

They used film cameras so why is the quality so bad? Im sure NASA can afford some decent lenses?

Cool Thread

What you mean crappy cameras? Those were probably the best at the time and that camera itself stayed as a top camera for decades to come.
The exposures are quite good considering the circumstances.

reply to post by PsykoOps


So why would they need to alter the photo's?

Do you think it might be because the guys who are intelligent enough to be astronauts cant take decent photo's? (With the best equipment at the time)

Well even with the best equipment getting every shot perfectly exposed would've been impossible. No automatic light metering etc.
If a 3rd party fixes the exposure later I see no reason to blame NASA for 'altering'.

reply to post by PsykoOps


I see your point...
Dont photographers ussually take various shots of the same thing at different

exposures, and then use the one that was the best... or merge them together

to have all evenly exposed, could you do that with film back then?

Yeah photographers do braketing with film and digital. The NASA photos aren't evenly exposed, there is over and underexposure on them but that can be fixed when the picture is exposed to the print material.
I'm not sure if the Apollo crew adjusted the exposures at all. That would've been quite difficult.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Do you know what camera they were using, some of the good film camera's

are still used today! Maybe we can figure out why the scratches appeared

maybe the film was processed badly?

Forgot to ask... why would it have been difficult?

[edit on 30-7-2009 by halfmanhalfamazing]

They used Hasselblads.
The scratches appeared on the print that was digitized. Those better versions are recent scans from the original negatives. See here for ziggystars exelent post.
Adjusting the exposure with the gloves on that they had would've been difficult. They had levers on the lenses but still. Also without automatic light metering they would've had to do guess work.

So these photo's are not original copies, but copies of copies of copies?

Hectic... That would mean that we couldn't possibly extract much truth out of

them. (Other than the fact that they are digital)

Cant wait to see the rescanned Hi Res versions of all the NASA Moon pics...

Awesome stuff:u

Thanks PsykoOps

Yeah the scratched one is god knows how many times copied. The fixed one however I think is a digital scan of the original.
Glad I could be of service

reply to post by PsykoOps


Great job thanks for your input .

reply to post by weedwhacker

This OP vacillates between posting YT vids made by kids who say the landings were 'faked', then posting these NASA photos alleging they are covering up 'alien' structures in the background of the actual Lunar Landing photos!!!

.

Vacillates means To sway from one side to the other; where has he done this ?
and I don't want any of your two paragraph post taking up valuable memory space on Ats servers, you know the normal copy and past that your use too.
We all know that your such a old member and so smart at goggling.and you think you can baffle everyone with bs because you can fly a plane your smarter . Your not the only one on this site who can fly ,and we all don't have to let everyone know about what we can do.

[edit on 30/7/2009 by ocker]

[edit on 30/7/2009 by ocker]

[edit on 30/7/2009 by ocker]

reply to post by ocker


Really?? THAT'S what ya got??? Trying to accuse me of "wasting" ATS memory, when this entire thread is a non-issue?

Ah, irony...

EDIT: Exhibit 'A': A new thread by Exuberant1 speaks for itself, the hyprocrisy (or lack of focus? Not sure which...)


[edit on 30 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

Please pardon my shameless little plug.............................

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a3f9fe9f18d2.jpg[/atsimg]

I don't mean to de-rail, but I recently posted my final theory on another thread. It correlates to this.

For me, it covers motive and explains many loose ends and nagging questions regarding the moon landing, NASA, secrecy etc. IMO, it solves the lingering doubts about cover-up.

I invite everyone to stop by. Walk-Ins Welcome. Free Admission. BYOB.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is where the Humpty Dumpty in me has finally fallen. I feel relieved.
Again, it is not my intent to de-rail this thread. Sorry. Just wanted to share.

Regards...KK

[edit on 30-7-2009 by kinda kurious]

It seems obvious to me that the image was lightened for the same reason most people lighten images - to increase clarity. The contrast was probably adjusted too. This actually provides more detail, not hides detail. In particular, the rock in the foreground has far more visible detail than before. I'm all for exploring conspiracies, but this is pretty weak.

reply to post by Zippey


Yes, and the fact that we cannot get detail where it does not exist shows that the brighter image was not made from the darker image, so either the darker image was made from the brighter one or they were made from different sources.

I'm a bit curious as to why, in the bright image, the reticules (crosshairs) have differing backdrop shadows. If you look at the top row of reticules, the second in from the left has a backdrop shadow to the left. The one directly to the right has a backdrop shadow to the right, and then the next reticule goes back to a left backdrop shadow.

Evidently, this has been used to prove composite images in the past. Were 2 photographs merged to form this image, perhaps?


Cheers,
Strype

reply to post by Exuberant1


Oh, please. Are you seriously trying to take old, scratched photos with light artifacts and claim they're coverups?!?

Y'know, I've got some photos of a ski trip I took in '82 and of my family at the pool on a Navy base in 1969.

These and other old photos I have are likewise grainy to varying degrees.

I suppose, by your reasoning, the graininess and scratches would be proof positive that my entire family is, in fact, actually composed of Lizard People from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse, posing as humans while we finish work on an article for the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy (123rd Edition).

Originally posted by Nightflyer28
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

Oh, please. Are you seriously trying to take old, scratched photos with light artifacts and claim they're coverups?!?

The scratches/objects end at the Horizon.

They might not all be scratches. Scratches may have been added after the fact to disguise the objects - it worked on you.

No they didn't. In fact they were in the foreground too.