What's wrong with this moonlanding picture?

Originally posted by Pinke

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.

The images are not identical, the side of the flag pictured is.
Here I have flipped AS11-40-5886, but not AS11-40-5905

reply to post by Saint Exupery

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.

You posted 3 different versions of the same image and you graciously explained to us how you modified the images in each case. NASA doesn't do that.

NASA has published at least this many versions of AS11-40-5886 on various .gov servers.

different coloration, lens flare not as bright
www.nasa.gov...

several more official versions/sizes from NASA
grin.hq.nasa.gov...

Another version, different coloration
history.nasa.gov...

chromatic effect on reflector above Neil's head
www.lpi.usra.edu...

a 2.9mb version
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

AS11-40-5886, the darkest official version has no lens flare
nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Life Magazine recently published the darkest image, as a panorama, with no lens flare, in this tribute to Neil Armstrong on page 74-75.


Life Magazine's Director of Photography for the tribute was Barbara Baker Burrows, a 40+ year employee. This is what she said in a 2008 interview,

Q: So, how has digitalized photography altered photojournalism?
A: First of all, is it the truth? You have to constantly be on guard. There are people out there with the digital age -- you don't know if they are going to add something or take something away. We used to crop in the old days, but it was done with integrity. We didn't alter a photograph to change the truth. I find that part of the digital age a little bit scary.

Read more: www.post-gazette.com...

reply to post by Ove38

The images are not identical, the side of the flag pictured is.

It was not claimed that the images are identical. That would be quite foolish.
And, as has been shown, the sides of the flag are not identical.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here I have flipped AS11-40-5886, but not AS11-40-5905

As has been pointed out, the idea that a single image of the flag being used is absurd beyond belief. Why do that when all that is needed is a real flag in the "fake" scene?

reply to post by Ove38


Then match up the two flags with a difference key or using opacity. They still won't be the same.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

You posted 3 different versions of the same image and you graciously explained to us how you modified the images in each case. NASA doesn't do that.

For the third time, yes it does:

apollo.mem-tek.com...

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
different coloration, lens flare not as bright
www.nasa.gov...

several more official versions/sizes from NASA
grin.hq.nasa.gov...

The images from the second link are the same as the one from the first link, only the size changes.

Another version, different coloration
history.nasa.gov...

And not cropped.

chromatic effect on reflector above Neil's head
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Like in the previous version, only the previous version had it's contrast changed, so the most subtle shades are missing.

a 2.9mb version
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

This one has a slight contrast change, not as strong as the one two links above.

AS11-40-5886, the darkest official version has no lens flare
nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Once more, if you are talking about that large whitish circle behind the astronaut, that darker version also has it, NASA is not responsible for the quality of your monitor or how you have it regulated.

PS: do you have any knowledge of digital imaging?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
NASA has published at least this many versions of AS11-40-5886 on various .gov servers.

And? What's the big deal? With the Apollo photos, one can get access to an unedited version. Go here: AS11-40-5886 and you can download a 4400x4600 image that hasn't had any colour correction, levels adjustments or cropping of any kind. Anyone can take that image and adjust it to the way they think is best or most appealing in their view.

The high res version should be available for the next 24hrs. After that it will need to be requested again.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
NASA has published at least this many versions of AS11-40-5886 on various .gov servers.

So what?

NASA does bot claim that ALL of the versions on various government servers are unaltered originals. There are NASA websites where they do offer the original image if you want it, but there is no reason to believe that every .gov published image will be the original.l version of the image.

That would be a very difficult thing to control, considering all of the copies (and copies of copies) that have been done over the years of those original images.

I'm not sure how you think that the existence of various copies of an Apollo image is somehow evidence of a Moon hoax. You have to figure that besides the original used for scientific research, other copies were made over the past 40+ years by -- say, for example -- the PR department to be distributed to the public, various news outlets, and maybe to educational institutions.

Some of these images may have been copies made from prints, and some may have been made from the original negatives, but processed in a different way that results in a darker image.

Here's the original image, for everybody's benefit:

img.photobucket.com...

It is quite clearly in need of adjustment if you want to make it presentable for media / general public. Quite a few Apollo images are over / under exposed, suffer from poor contrats, and other things.

So, do we still have an issue with the images being somehow fake/photoshopped/unreliable?

Originally posted by wildespace
Here's the original image, for everybody's benefit:

img.photobucket.com...

It is quite clearly in need of adjustment if you want to make it presentable for media / general public. Quite a few Apollo images are over / under exposed, suffer from poor contrats, and other things.

So, do we still have an issue with the images being somehow fake/photoshopped/unreliable?

edit on 23-9-2012 by wildespace because: (no reason given)

Yes, the gap between the flag and the pole, does not match, with this picture of the flag

reply to post by Ove38

Considering that image was taken from a different angle than the one in the OP, I can't really tell if the gap matches or not (i.e., In can't tell if there is a gap in the OP's image due to the angle).

And even if the gap between the flag and the pole IS different, it is possible that the flag was adjusted between the two images, considering the two images were taken about 2 hours apart.

reply to post by Ove38


Wrong again, wrong as usual.

And, as usual you didn't test your idea to see if it had any merit - you just jumped to a conclusion with no thought at all.

If you had any common sense, you might have taken 10 seconds to wonder if the viewing angle had any effect of what you were seeing. After all, the first two pictures were within 20 degrees of face-on to the flag, and the third is within ~20 degrees of edge-on.

Let's say, for the sake of experiment, that you reject the idea. If you follow the usual HB script, then that is the end of it. The idea that there might be a plausible explanation that doesn't involve a massive conspiracy, fraud, etc. cannot be considered, because this is a threat to your world-view.

If, on the other hand, you had any curiosity at all, you might have taken the scientific approach and test whether or not you are correct. In science, this is called "falsifying your hypothesis".

Hypothesis: Viewing angle does not effect whether or not I see a gap between the flagpole and the flag.

It took me less than 5 minutes to set-up an experiment to test this hypothesis.

Experiment:
1.) Create a flag.
2.) Make sure that there is a gap between the flag and the flagpole that is visible from nearly edge-on.

Note that recreating the exact angle from the photograph is not necessary, since we are simply asking a yes/no question, and not establishing parameters (if you disagree, then do your own experiment and show your results here, or you can just shut-up. "Nuh-uh!" is not an acceptable argument in science).

3.) Turn the flag face-on in one direction, then turn it face-on in the other direction:



Observation: The gap is sometimes not visible from angles close to face-on.

Conclusion: The hypothesis is FALSE.

Again, if you disagree, then do your own experiment and show your results here. Any argument without comparable experimental data will be rejected.

******************

Of course, if this whole idea of thinking and working is just too hard, you could just sit-back and watch the 16mm DAC film of the flag-raising. The DAC camera was pointed through the same window as the third photo you posted. Thus the viewpoint is within a few inches of identical. By 4:44 the flag is in the same position as it is in the photograph. The gap between the flag and the flagpole is clearly visible. 10 seconds later, Aldrin poses for his two pictures with the flag.

So there you have it. The same scene recorded from two directions at the same time. One shows a gap and the other does not. The difference is caused by the viewing angle.

QED.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

You posted 3 different versions of the same image and you graciously explained to us how you modified the images in each case. NASA doesn't do that.

For the third time, yes it does:

apollo.mem-tek.com...

Copyright ©2005-2012 MEM-TEK. All rights reserved. Site contents, services and terms of use are subject to change without notice.

Accuracy of Information
All information contained in this site was derived from sources believed to be correct, but is not guaranteed. 2012.

You call that a reliable source? You live in a fantasy world.

There are a lot of twists & turns in the MEM-TEK "terms and conditions".

Warranties and Disclaimers
MEM-TEK MAY MAKE IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR CHANGES IN ANY PRODUCT(S) AND/OR SERVICE(S) DESCRIBED IN THIS WEB SITE AT ANY TIME. BY CHANGING THE CONTENTS DISPLAYED ON THIS WEB SITE, MEM-TEK MAY, WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE, CHANGE THE TERMS OF USE FOR THIS WEB SITE. WHEN USING THIS WEB SITE, VISITORS SHOULD PERIODICALLY CHECK THIS PAGE TO CONFIRM THE LATEST TERMS OF USE.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by Akezzon

 

Lens flare/glare is entirely consistent with lighting and shadow positions.
The is a very common 'effect' produced where a bright light source refracts and/or reflects at certain angles off the camera lens and internal lenses.

edit on 15-4-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

I agree.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

You posted 3 different versions of the same image and you graciously explained to us how you modified the images in each case. NASA doesn't do that.

For the third time, yes it does:

apollo.mem-tek.com...

MEM-TEK ≠ NASA.

MEM-TEK = youtube user GoneToPlaid, "a professional in the business of deconvolving and enhancing photographs." - AstroSock1. Why would a "professional" use an anonymous youtube account and an anonymous website? Is he/she afraid to put his real name and professional reputation on the line?

...or perhaps he is smart because HB's are known liars, frauds and have in the past assaulted people to get their point? Does it make any difference at all? No... didn't think so.

reply to post by ArMaP

PS: do you have any knowledge of digital imaging?

Do you have any knowledge of pre-trial discovery, as it pertains to the law?

discovery is "A category of procedural devices employed by a party to a civil or criminal action, prior to trial, to require the adverse party to disclose information that is essential for the preparation of the requesting party's case and that the other party alone knows or possesses." Source legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Saint Exupery - "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."

Honestly, you people. Life Magazine does not use the lens flare version.

Either you are blind or in purpose spamming this nonsense. The flare is there. Also show me where this evidence is claimed by NASA not to be edited?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

PS: do you have any knowledge of digital imaging?

Do you have any knowledge of pre-trial discovery, as it pertains to the law?

Why don't you ever answer my questions with a direct answer? A "yes" or a "no" would be fine...

As for your strange question, no, I don't have the slightest idea of what's a "pre-trial discovery, as it pertains to the law", and neither do I understand why you talk about that when we are talking about digital versions of a physical photo.

Now, can you please answer my question (the third time may be a lucky time)? Is the lens flare that large whitish circle behind the astronaut? If it is, it's visible on the photo that you say it's not, as you can see for yourself if you, by using some digital imaging tools, change the brightness or light levels of the darker photo.

Honestly, you people. Life Magazine does not use the lens flare version.

Who cares about Life Magazine? They could have used a photo of Richard Nixon dancing the rumba, for what I care. They choose what they think most people will like, so it's natural they chose a photo that has more contrast (most people like strong colours instead of good information).

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Either you are blind or in purpose spamming this nonsense. The flare is there. Also show me where this evidence is claimed by NASA not to be edited?

Who is this MEM-TEK/GoneToPlaid and why do they remain anonymous?
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Original LROC image courtesy NASA/GSFC/ASU.
However, the Deconvovled/enhanced versions courtesy NASA/GSFC/ASU/ GoneToPlaid.


Did you miss my quotation from Barbara Baker Burrows/Life Magazine?

Q: So, how has digitalized photography altered photojournalism?
A: First of all, is it the truth? You have to constantly be on guard. There are people out there with the digital age -- you don't know if they are going to add something or take something away.

That's exactly what deconvolution entails, adding something and taking something away; in one or more iterations.

Since the original convolution discards data, some algorithms use additional data acquired at nearby focal points to make up some of the lost information. Source Wiki en.wikipedia.org...

That's exactly what GoneToPlaid has done with the LRO images of "Apollo" landing sites on the "Moon".

----
My conspiracy conclusion is that GoneToPlaid is not a single person but a team of CIA image manipulators who can use digital algorithms, like the Expectation–maximization algorithm, to deconvolve LRO/Apollo images, to distribute them, and to fool people into thinking that they "see footprints" or "landers" on the moon. It is Hollywood special effects job. See my .sig file with the Charles Bolden quote.

There is no professional, scientific, moral or artistic reason to hide behind a pseudonym in the study of Apollo landing site imagery. None at all.