What's wrong with this moonlanding picture?

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
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.
edit on 9/23/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: tags


So says the anonymous, cultural vandal on the internet who has made 15+ posts in the last 4 pages about his findings about available Apollo landing site imagery.




posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaPWho 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).


Or, Richard Underwood, Farouk El-Baz, Noel Lamar and some random dude from Kodak decided to take the Apollo negatives, for reasons of national security, manipulated/created some photos of the first mission to the moon, destroying the real negatives in the process. Similar to what happened with all the 700+ boxes of Apollo telemetry tapes.



edit on 9/23/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: add the random dude from Kodak



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


I see the third time was not the lucky one, so I will ask you for the fourth time. Is the lens flare that you say it's visible in one image but not on the darker one that large whitish circle behind the astronaut? If it is, don't you see it in the darker photo? It's visible to anyone with a well calibrated monitor.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

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.
edit on 22/9/2012 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)


After you edited the bottom NASA image of the purple-haze moon scape version of AS11-40-5886, Yes, I am now able to clearly see a large circular lens flare amidst all of the other .jpg artifacts. As we all know the moon is not purple.

NASA maintains exclusive access to the Apollo source content. The existence of a purple-haze version on a NASA.gov server contradicts all other NASA.gov versions of this image.

This means that NASA is deliberately trying to confuse the public-at-large through the reckless dissemination of this purple image. The moon is not purple and even after you did some "level adjustments in Gimp" the bottom image still has a purple-ish/pink-ish/red-ish hue to it. Do you see that in your calibrated monitor system?


jra

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
This means that NASA is deliberately trying to confuse the public-at-large through the reckless dissemination of this purple image.


I think the only one who is confused is you. Most people can comprehend how editing and adjusting the same photo in different ways can lead to different results. This isn't rocket science.

To me, it seems likely that some novice edited the ''purple'' Moon image. If I select "Auto levels" in photoshop on the original image that I linked to on the previous page, it gets a purplish/reddish tint to it. If I do it manually, I can get it to look a lot better and without a purple/red tint.

Also, don't forget that the film itself can also play a role in how colours appear in the final product.


The moon is not purple and even after you did some "level adjustments in Gimp" the bottom image still has a purple-ish/pink-ish/red-ish hue to it. Do you see that in your calibrated monitor system?


Nope.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Guys, seriously, don't bother. This person will have you going round and round like a hamster in a wheel. We have established a while ago that there is nothing wrong with this picture. If someone is determined that any adjustment of the original image renders it invalid, let them think so.
edit on 24-9-2012 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
After you edited the bottom NASA image of the purple-haze moon scape version of AS11-40-5886, Yes, I am now able to clearly see a large circular lens flare amidst all of the other .jpg artifacts.
As what I did was just to enhance some parts of the image (the darker ones), that shows that the lens flare was already there, as what I did does not create lens flare effects.

That points to that photo being created from the original, lighter but a little washed out, version, because it's easy to make an image darker than it was while keeping most of the way it looked than making it lighter.


As we all know the moon is not purple.
That's right, and that's another clue showing that the darker, purple image was made from the other image and is not the original.


NASA maintains exclusive access to the Apollo source content. The existence of a purple-haze version on a NASA.gov server contradicts all other NASA.gov versions of this image.
It doesn't contradict other versions, as all the elements are in the same place. From a content point of view, that version confirms all the others, the only thing that changes is the presentation, in the same a greyscale version.


This means that NASA is deliberately trying to confuse the public-at-large through the reckless dissemination of this purple image.
I don't have any way of knowing NASA's intentions, but I don't think people that see that photo will think that the Moon is purple.


The moon is not purple and even after you did some "level adjustments in Gimp" the bottom image still has a purple-ish/pink-ish/red-ish hue to it. Do you see that in your calibrated monitor system?
Yes, I see it, and one of the reasons is because I didn't want to change the colours, just the light levels, that's why I asked you if you have any knowledge of digital imaging.

If I wanted to change the Moon's colour I could have reduced the saturation a little and apply some colour balance, resulting in this:



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thank you ArMap for discussing the lens flair variation with me.


AS11-40-5886 is the only full-body Hasselblad image of Neil Armstrong on the surface of the "moon". It goes without saying that this single image is very important to human history. 5886 must be able to stand up to the closest scrutiny. 5886 must be a trustworthy document of history.

Unfortunately, NASA has provided dozens and dozens of variations of 5886 image to the public-at-large over the span of 42 years.

One of the key features of 5886 is the lens flair variation which we have discussed. Another key feature is the rock/rocks/boulder formation which is oriented directly above the Solar Wind Experiment.

This is the rock I am talking about.


It is clear to me that the rock in 5886 contains photographic details in the rock, as you say 'content', which has been obliterated from other NASA versions of 5886. The details in the rock are included in the 'content' of the image. Am I correct?


From a content point of view, that version confirms all the others, the only thing that changes is the presentation, in the same a greyscale version.


If 5886 is a trustworthy image then in all copies and variations published by NASA we should find details in the face of the rock. The rock shall NOT be washed out. But it is not the case: because I found numerous copies/variations of 5886 on .gov servers which has the rock washed out and contain NO DETAILS in the rock.

NASA has unquestionably destroyed image content in the lens flair variations and NASA has presented these differing variations on .gov servers as authentic representations of the original 5886 image.

Therefore, in my opinion, any Apollo image from NASA must be thoroughly scrutinized and evaluated on the basis of the content in the image and any versions of 5886 which do not have detail in the rock are not trustworthy.

TL;DR
What this means is that NASA does not have adequate controls of Apollo program images and the lack of adequate controls means that NASA is not trustworthy when it presents images to the public-at-large.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 



Also, don't forget that the film itself can also play a role in how colours appear in the final product.


Let's call a truce on this thread because I believe this image of Neil Armstrong (the ONLY FULL BODY HASSELBLAD PHOTO OF CDR ARMSTRONG ON THE SURFACE OF THE "MOON") has been misrepresented to the public-at-large.

Can you trace out, for us in this thread, the provenance of any of these digital copies of AS11-40-5886?

The truth about AS11-40-5886 is this :

NASA presents AS-11-40-5886 to the public-at-large on .gov servers at least 6 major variations of AS11-40-5886.

The first example was posted just the other day on Space.com with image Credit: NASA
www.space.com...

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...

-------

I have noted else where in the thread that Life Magazine recently published (in America) a 96-page tribute to Neil Armstrong. Life uses the version of 5886 without lens flair variation.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Do you think your argument is going to be less-stupid the more times you repeat it?




posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



What this means is that NASA does not have adequate controls of Apollo program images and the lack of adequate controls means that NASA is not trustworthy when it presents images to the public-at-large.


I see. NASA does not control information enough, therefore it is not trustworthy. I think you will find several hundred UFO believers here on ATS who will crucify you for that statement.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Thank you ArMap for discussing the lens flair variation with me.
Your welcome.



AS11-40-5886 is the only full-body Hasselblad image of Neil Armstrong on the surface of the "moon". It goes without saying that this single image is very important to human history. 5886 must be able to stand up to the closest scrutiny. 5886 must be a trustworthy document of history.
To me, that image is less important than an image that shows a close-up of a rock. Having a man in the photo means nothing to me, and in fact he is obstructing part of the view, so I would prefer the photo without him.


But like all other Apollo photos, that photo must be a trustworthy document of history, but by that I mean the original, not a digital copy.

The company where I work makes (mostly) software for archives, so I am used to documents with historical meaning (I had some XVI century documents from the Portuguese army so I could scan them, as the archive didn't have scanners at the time, I have the ratification of the oldest international agreement, the one between Portugal and Great Britain, signed by Queen Victoria, etc.). In all cases, a digital copy is only intended to make it easier for the public to have access to something that, otherwise, would be inaccessible, as nobody can just take a peek at an Apollo photo whenever they want it.


It is clear to me that the rock in 5886 contains photographic details in the rock, as you say 'content', which has been obliterated from other NASA versions of 5886. The details in the rock are included in the 'content' of the image. Am I correct?
Yes, that's part of what I called "content", as the visible face of the rock may have information about it that a specialist could "read" to know something about it.


If 5886 is a trustworthy image then in all copies and variations published by NASA we should find details in the face of the rock.
The digital representation(s) are just an help to the public, so they can have an idea of how that area was, any scientist doing serious work would not use some copy found on the Internet, he would ask for a print made from a first generation copy.


The rock shall NOT be washed out. But it is not the case: because I found numerous copies/variations of 5886 on .gov servers which has the rock washed out and contain NO DETAILS in the rock.
That's why I said that most of the photos found on NASA servers are just for public consumption by the general public, the public that prefers strong colours instead of what looks like a washed-out photo, even if the washed-out photo has more information.


NASA has unquestionably destroyed image content in the lens flair variations and NASA has presented these differing variations on .gov servers as authentic representations of the original 5886 image.
Some content was lost, that's true. Just the fact they used a format like JPEG make that happen, as JPEG loses some image information and changes some colours to achieve higher compression. If they wanted the images closes to the original they would have provided TIFF images (at the time PNG was not an option), like they do on sites like Lunar Orbiter Digitization Project or the Apollo Image Archive.


Therefore, in my opinion, any Apollo image from NASA must be thoroughly scrutinized and evaluated on the basis of the content in the image and any versions of 5886 which do not have detail in the rock are not trustworthy.
That's why I prefer the images from The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth, as most of those were made from the oldest (closest to the original) TIFF files.


What this means is that NASA does not have adequate controls of Apollo program images and the lack of adequate controls means that NASA is not trustworthy when it presents images to the public-at-large.
The problem is that the "public at large" doesn't care about the quality of the photos, as long as they look "pretty". I suppose you have seen some ATS members changing the images (usually by increasing the contrast) to make the images look "better".



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 

So you've proved that NASA public relations alters images to look prettier for public consumption.

What's the big deal? How is that evidence that the Moon landings are a hoax? Especially considering that NASA has made the original and unaltered versions of those images freely available on the for anyone to see.

If they were trying to do anything other than trying to make these press released images look "pretty" (i.e., if they were trying to hide something), then why would the original and unaltered versions of the pictures be so readily available for anyone and everyone to examine?

Could you please answer that?

edit on 9/25/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   

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

So you've proved that NASA public relations alters images to look prettier for public consumption.


And NASA's 50 year Apollo propaganda is still going strong,,, they have special outreach programs to "help journalists understand the science", cartoons about dogs in space for the kids and big money Hollywood versions of revisionist history, e.g. Ron Howard and Forrest Gump's Apollo 13. NASA knows how to propaganda.


What's the big deal? How is that evidence that the Moon landings are a hoax? Especially considering that NASA has made the original and unaltered versions of those images freely available on the for anyone to see.


For this thread, the topic is the image, AS11-40-5886 but the big deal is the tax payer is flipping the bill for these 6 redundant image archives, all with separate IT expenses, and that means these pictures aren't "free" anymore than they are "freely available". That's a lot of money for image servers that are built solely for PR purposes. How many different Apollo archives does you think you need? Like I said : NASA doesn't have adequate controls of the images. You will find a dark purple version with almost no lens flair and the rock has no detail inside it. You can justify this only in terms of PR and IT expenses, i.e. the ongoing costs of the cover-up.


If they were trying to do anything other than trying to make these press released images look "pretty" (i.e., if they were trying to hide something), then why would the original and unaltered versions of the pictures be so readily available for anyone and everyone to examine?

Could you please answer that?

According to some sources in this thread, the best available on-line version, the "original and unaltered version", is found on the ftp site; we are expected to go there and ftp for a file that expires in 24 hours. What kind of dubious shell game server system is that?

With that all said, I think that I will retire from this thread. I've learned a lot about this image AS11-40-5886. I have also learned how NASA has manipulated the historical memory of the only full body Hasselblad picture of Neil Armstrong taken on the surface of the "purple moon".


-Thanks to ArMap for your last response. We don't see completely eye to eye but I enjoyed this interchange.
edit on 9/25/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: add
edit on 9/25/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: add hasselblad



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



NASA knows how to propaganda.


You sound jealous.


For this thread, the topic is the image, AS11-40-5886 but the big deal is the tax payer is flipping the bill for these 6 redundant image archives, all with separate IT expenses, and that means these pictures aren't "free" anymore than they are "freely available". That's a lot of money for image servers that are built solely for PR purposes


Whereas, if they only had one site that was "pay per view," you would accuse them of trying to hide something. Once again, you have raised a philosophical question: what is the difference between maintaining an historical archive and promulgating propaganda? Is the Smithsonian Institution propaganda? The Library of Congress?


According to some sources in this thread, the best available on-line version, the "original and unaltered version", is found on the ftp site; we are expected to go there and ftp for a file that expires in 24 hours. What kind of dubious shell game server system is that?


There is nothing preventing you from saving that image in any format you choose. It's all just information now. And it's free, courtesy of us evil US tax payers. Even Kiwis are welcome to have a copy.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   
This is very interesting... see how it's faked... THIS IS INCREDIBLE...




posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


What exactly is that supposed to prove, except that in some Apollo images you can see a foreground horizon line, with additional background items?

I can see the same thing in these images (a foreground with a horizon line, and additional things beyoond the horizon line). That does not make the subject of these images fake:





So what does that video prove, except that (just like in nature here on Earth) there could be foreground horizon lines in certain images taken on the Moon.

edit on 9/26/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Also, the front-projection process only works if you don't mind the background being brighter than the foreground; otherwise, you get unwanted reflections on the screen. That's why you can't do a black sky with front-projection. A dead-giveaway in front-projection is that if you have anything shiny in the foreground, it's going to reflect the projector light back to the camera:


Note the leopard's eyes, which reflected the light for the duration of this shot.

Of course, the Apollo equipment had a lot of bright and/or shiny surfaces In some cases, this was to reflect sunlight & control temperatures). This includes the aluminized mylar on the LM and other gear, the fenders on the rovers, the cameras, metal tools & antennae and, most glaring of all (pun intended) the big lexan face shields on the astronauts' space helments.

For these reasons and more, you could not film Apollo equipment using front-projection.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


I think that it's suppose to mimick reality. I understand what you're saying though about reality could be then described as a fake image. But you just to think of it from the vantage point that they were try to mimic real landscape scenes inside a studio. And that was the way to accomplish it.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 



I think that it's suppose to mimick reality. I understand what you're saying though about reality could be then described as a fake image. But you just to think of it from the vantage point that they were try to mimic real landscape scenes inside a studio. And that was the way to accomplish it.


So you agree the photographs look real. If they look real, why do you believe they are not?





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join