What's wrong with this moonlanding picture?

reply to post by Saint Exupery

(remember that his own cronies turned on him over a silly, second-rate burglary).

No, I think that it is YOU who are the one who has completely underestimated the Richard Nixon presidency and the loyalty of the devoted anti-communist servants (this includes Apollo astronauts). Do you think Nixon's pardon absolved him only of his Watergate mischief? No! It positively cleared him of all his Viet Nam war crimes, and,
Apollo.


Richard Nixon knows how influential a tool is television. He used television, with $75,000 dollars of Republican money, to defend himself on Tv regarding the scandalous $15,000 "Nixon Fund". That was his first Tv experiment. He was very successful. He was VP under Ike and acted as president when Ike was in the hospital. Shortly after Sputnik.

Sputnik is the lynchpin in my theory because it drove the anti-Communists in Washington utterly berzerk. They went totally bananas. And with Richard Nixon acting as president when Ike was disabled they were encouraged to explore all the options. The options included using NASA as a propaganda tool of the military industrial complex. To beat the Soviets at all costs.

Then Richard Nixon learned another valuable lesson about Tv when he was thwarted in his presidential lust for power by the exceedingly suave and handsome JFK. Nixon lost on Tv. Nixon became acutely certain of how Tv could influence (and manipulate) public perceptions as a direct result of this Tv debate.

Fast forward to the Gulf of Tonkin. 1964. LBJ used Tv to sell a 10-year war to the American public and they bought it - hook, line and sinker. It was an easy sales job. The 2 tiny communist gun boats represented a grave threat to American national security, didn't they? The Tv said it was true.

Life Magazine and all the American media did a spectacular job of selling the Moon program to the American public, The astronauts where painted as patriotic heroic idols to be worshipped. The Tv networks used simulated moon sets, puppets and model rockets. The Tv consumers of the 1960's had already been shocked so many times, one more time wouldn't hurt them. Americans were already in a state of shock. Nixon took advantage of it. The military industrial complex supported him in this effort. The loyalist, fervent anti-communist cliques within the Pentagon and NASA had the motive, means and opportunity to pull this off. Together, in concert, they produced the Apollo Tv show.

Do you remember the 1938 War of the Worlds radio experiment? The Apollo Program was just like that. Only better. Howard Hughes and the CIA were in on this as well.

The NASA cheerleaders have caught themselves in a big trap. NASA serves two different images of reality on two different servers. But only one of them can be true. Lens flare or without lens flare.

The NASA cheerleaders cannot waiver on this question any longer: Which version of AS11-40-5886 is true to reality?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


I can see the lens flare on the second picture. It's hard to spot, but it's there. I too wonder which of the images has more realistic colours (I recon it's the upper one; the Moon is not purple), but I don't have any doubts that it's two versions of the same image, with adjusted contrast/brightness/saturation/colour balance.

Apollo images were taken on a photographic film, and some frames have an odd hue. Colour film also changes hues with age, and some correction is perfectly understandable.

reply to post by wildespace


You have to understand how important this single point has become to him. When people find something that they consider to be hidden information it gives them a huge boost in good feeling chemicals. They believe that they are special.

Overcoming this feeling and realising that this secret information is nothing more than a few different people having to upload this photo and deciding to correct it in different ways is a very hard thing to do. Despite the fact that it's been made completely clear why there are different versions and how to find the original it won't convince people who have emotional investment in the idea.

This is typical HB behaviour. They come up with something. Usually something that could easily be explained by doing some basic research. They then find a medium such as youtube or ATS and make their case and then stick their heads into the sand and ignore the answers.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Sputnik is the lynchpin in my theory because it drove the anti-Communists in Washington utterly berzerk. They went totally bananas. And with Richard Nixon acting as president when Ike was disabled they were encouraged to explore all the options. The options included using NASA as a propaganda tool of the military industrial complex. To beat the Soviets at all costs.

I don't know where to begin with this one. Eisenhower was not incapacitated in late 1957. He suffered a heart attack in 1956 and was fully recovered in seven weeks. He did have a mild stroke in November of 1957, but did not authorize Nixon to act on his behalf until 1958:

President Eisenhower was diagnosed with Crohn's disease or ileitis on May 10, 1956. On June 8, he required surgery at Walter Reed Hospital, thus the public learned of the diagnosis during the election year. He won his second term. On November 25, 1957 Eisenhower suffered a mild stroke in the Oval Office. This left him with a slight speech impediment. The next year Eisenhower wrote a letter of authority giving Vice President Richard Nixon means to assume power in the event of incapacitation of the President. The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1967, formalized conveyance of authority if a living President was incapacitated.

en.wikipedia.org...

True, NASA was founded in response to Sputnik, but it was the brainchild of Eisenhower, not Nixon:

Americans were astonished when the first space satellite--"Sputnik"-- gave the Soviets the lead in space, and Eisenhower came under heavy criticism. The administration responded to this crisis with many strategic initiatives, including the creation of NASA in 1958 and a speeding up of the American space program. Eisenhower started NASA's human spaceflight program and funded visionary projects such as Saturn and the F-1 rocket engine which were necessary for success in the subsequent administrations' effort to win the Space Race.

en.wikipedia.org...

Ike felt that it was important that the United States be seen to be leading in the peaceful exploration of space, operating with openness and sharing its scientific discoveries with the world. You may construe this as propaganda if you wish. The United States made no secret of the fact that it was developing missiles for military purposes.

Your characterization of that administration's attitude towards space is not quite accurate, either:

While the Super-Juno program was being drawn up, preparations were underway for the first satellite launch as the US contribution to the International Geophysical Year in 1957. For complex political reasons, the program had been given to the US Navy under Project Vanguard. The Vanguard launcher consisted of a Viking lower stage combined with new uppers adapted from sounding rockets. ABMA provided valuable support on Viking and Vanguard, both with their first-hand knowledge of the V-2, as well as developing its guidance system. The first three Vanguard suborbital test flights had gone off without a hitch, starting in December 1956, and a launch was planned for late 1957.

On 4 October 1957, the Soviet Union unexpectedly launched Sputnik I. Although there had been some idea that the Soviets were working towards this goal, even in public, no one considered it to be very serious. When asked about the possibility in a November 1954 press conference, Defense Secretary Wilson replied "I wouldn't care if they did."[10] The public did not see it the same way, however, and the event was a major public relations disaster for the US. Vanguard was planned to launch shortly after Sputnik, but a series of delays pushed this into December, when the rocket exploded in spectacular fashion. The press was harsh, referring to the project as "Kaputnik"[11] or "Project Rearguard"...

von Braun responded to Sputnik I's launch by claiming he could have a satellite in orbit within 90 days of being given a go-ahead. His plan was to combine the existing Jupiter C rocket with the solid-fuel engines from the Vanguard, producing the Juno I. There was no immediate response while everyone waited for Vanguard to launch, but the continued delays in Vanguard and the November launch of Sputnik II resulted in the go-ahead being given that month. von Braun kept his promise with the successful launch of Explorer I on January 31, 1958.[12] Vanguard was finally successful on March 17, 1958.

en.wikipedia.org...(rocket_family)

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
The NASA cheerleaders cannot waiver on this question any longer: Which version of AS11-40-5886 is true to reality?

Well, first of all NO picture can give a 100% true representation -- not print film and not digital media. They both rely on artificial means to re-produce color. Print film uses chemicals in its attempt to artificially reproduce color. Digital cameras use color filters and computer algorithms to "guess" at color. A few people still don't realize that a digital camera's light sensor is color blind -- it only "sees" in shades of gray. A digital camera produces its artificial color by viewing the incoming light going through filters before it hits the gray-scale-only light sensor. That filter gray light is then analyzed by a computer program that "guesses" which color is represented by the shade of gray.


In direct response to your question:
I suspect color-wise that the first picture is closer to what you would see if you were really there. However, the lens flare is an artifact of the camera lens, and is something that the eye does not see. So the first picture would be close to what the human eye can see, but minus the lens flare.

By the way, believing we went to the Moon is not being a "NASA cheerleader". I believe we went to the Moon, but I don't consider NASA infallible. I don't see what one has to do with the other.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Nope, you're trying to wiggle-out of it. These are your words:

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

The anti-communists and Nixon loyalists would do anything to beat* the Russians. Anything/

This is emphatic acknowledgement from you that you believe Nixon would have launched men to the moon, live in full view of the entire world.

Or, in conspiretard world, does "anything" somehow not include the simplest, most sensible and least risky choice that is consistent with all of the evidence and our known capabilities?

.
.
.
.
.

*I shouldn't have to point this out, but you don't beat anybody if you fake it.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

I mean, it is very common to re-touch images for magazine publication.

Faking a lens flair on a NASA Apollo lunar image is deceitful, whether it was done by NASA or the magazine publisher. Yet NASA publishes this same image on multiple different servers, with and without lens flair.

Therefore, NASA is deceitful.

They didn't fake the lens flare (i.e., they did NOT artificially add the lens flare to the original image).
Rather, someone (I don't know who) created a different version of the picture where the lens flare was removed.

The lens flare is part of the original image. There were many, many images from Apollo where the camera lens caused lens flare. It's an unavoidable camera artifact when sunlight falls on or across the lens. All of those ORIGINAL images are freely available for anyone to look at. If you want to see the originals, just look at them.



I really don't understand you fascination with this image with lens flare

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
They didn't fake the lens flare (i.e., they did NOT artificially add the lens flare to the original image).
Rather, someone (I don't know who) created a different version of the picture where the lens flare was removed.

Technically speaking I'm not even sure the lens flare was 'removed' from that image. Using color/luma editing alone you could quite easily make said flare quite difficult to see and its pretty obvious one image has a fair bit of crunchy color changes.

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
They didn't fake the lens flare (i.e., they did NOT artificially add the lens flare to the original image).
Rather, someone (I don't know who) created a different version of the picture where the lens flare was removed.

Technically speaking I'm not even sure the lens flare was 'removed' from that image. Using color/luma editing alone you could quite easily make said flare quite difficult to see and its pretty obvious one image has a fair bit of crunchy color changes.

edit on 22-9-2012 by Pinke because: luma

Thank you. I suppose image adjustments such as contrast-adjustment and what you described could make the lens flare virtually disappear from a print without actual "brushing out" of that area of the print medium containing the lens flare itself.

Originally posted by wildespace
I can see the lens flare on the second picture.

So can I, that's why I asked SayonaraJupiter if that large circle is the lens flare he has been talking about, but as usual my questions are never answered the first time I ask them.

Anyone with a well calibrated monitor should see it.

Edited to add the image after some level adjustments in Gimp.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
The NASA cheerleaders have caught themselves in a big trap. NASA serves two different images of reality on two different servers. But only one of them can be true. Lens flare or without lens flare.

The NASA cheerleaders cannot waiver on this question any longer: Which version of AS11-40-5886 is true to reality?

False dilemma. As SGIP has pointed out, no photograph any where, at any time is 100% true to reality. See The Treachery of Images.

The original of AS11-40-5886 (a 70x70mm positive film slide on a Kodak E-Star base, stored in a freezer in Texas) shows the lense flare. This is not a accurate recording of the actual scene, because Buzz Aldrin did not see a large, white ball floating between himself and Neil Armstrong. It was an artifact introduced by the camera. Reproductions and scans of the image have introduced their own artifacts, some of them accumulating through several generations of copying. Sometimes the copies have been retouched, and then copies again. As such, THERE IS NO "OFFICIAL" VERSION. However, no amount of copying or retouching changes the fact that this image is a photograph of Neil Armstrong, taken by Buzz Aldrin on the Moon in July of 1969.

Here is an example:

This is a photo of me taken by my wife near South Mavora Lake in New Zealand.


Now I remember the colors being more vivid. It was late in the day and her camera didn't really didn't register what we were seeing. I tried adjusting the brightness, contrast & colors:


That was OK-ish. Whatever. More glaring was the fact that my wife had the camera set to show the date. It's useful, but not artistically attractive; so I retouched the first image to remove it:


Lastly, I reduced the size of all three images to 30% of original to make them easier to upload and display. None of these changes are deceitful (you may take my word for it that I did not walk past large yellow numbers in a field on South Island). None of these changes alter the fact that these are photographs of me in New Zealand.

I would be happy to show any of these versions to my friends or even strangers that I meet, because I have faith that they are not silly enough to believe for a moment that retouching automatically constitutes deception or fakery, or that showing multiple versions of the same image is somehow deceitful.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
The NASA cheerleaders have caught themselves in a big trap. NASA serves two different images of reality on two different servers. But only one of them can be true. Lens flare or without lens flare.

The NASA cheerleaders cannot waiver on this question any longer: Which version of AS11-40-5886 is true to reality?

Look at the flag in your AS11-40-5886 and the flag in AS11-40-5905



This is obviously two different pictures taken of the same side of the flag.
Why is one picture or one flag, flipped the opposite way ???
Your AS11-40-5886 is 100% fake

reply to post by Ove38

This is obviously two different pictures taken of the same side of the flag.

No. Please tell me you are being sarcastic.
It is taken from opposite sides of the flag. See the shadow of the LM in front of the flag in 5886? See it behind the flag in 5905?

Originally posted by Ove38This is obviously two different pictures taken of the same side of the flag.
Why is one picture flipped the opposite way ???

No it's not. Even a cursory glance shows that in the left image, the side of the flag facing the camera is catching direct sunlight, and the image on the right shows the shadowed side of the flag, with the sun coming through the nylon. This effect is trivially easy to reproduce on Earth. As for the wrinkles, if you make stereo pairs of these and associated images (which I have done, and you can too), you can see which way each crease is actually going.

Oh, right - conspiracy believers never do their own work.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Ove38

 

This is obviously two different pictures taken of the same side of the flag.

No. Please tell me you are being sarcastic.
It is taken from opposite sides of the flag. See the shadow of the LM in front of the flag in 5886? See it behind the flag in 5905?

Its not taken from opposite sides, the flag's wrinkles and corresponding shadows are identical !
AS11-40-5886 is 100% fake

reply to post by Ove38

Oh. You weren't being sarcastic. Wrinkle a piece of cloth. Guess what, the wrinkles are the same on both sides.

Here is an animation with 5886 flipped, rotated, and scaled so the height of the flag matches and the tilt of the pole is the same.



The pictures are taken from opposite sides. Look at the shadows on the flag pole. Look at the registration crosses on the images. In 5905 there is a cross on the stars, in 5886 there is not. In 5905 there is a shadow where the bottom of the flag attaches to the pole in 5886 there is not. Look at the fold in the seam on the pole edge of the flag, it's folded to one side of the flag. Look at the highlights along the top of the flag.


This is one of the silliest claims yet.
So, they couldn't be bothered to walk to the other side of the flag in the "fake" landing scene. They had to flip the image of the flag and paste it in. Brilliant.

Originally posted by Ove38
Its not taken from opposite sides, the flag's wrinkles and corresponding shadows are identical !
AS11-40-5886 is 100% fake

If you used a difference key or opacity to line those two images up I can guarantee it will show they're not identical.

They're similar, mainly because it's the same flatish piece of cloth you're photographing. Not sure why you're using wikipedia as a source here either.

Edit: I have a case of Phage rage ... >.<

Phage it always amazes me how much effort you put into this stuff. I think I gave up at life around mid last year in explaining things to people. Well done.

Originally posted by Ove38
This is obviously two different pictures taken of the same side of the flag.

Why are the stars grey (or is that supposed to be silver) in one and white in the other?

Do flags have a "front" and a "back" side?