NASA is removing the reseau marks from Apollo images

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
I hear what you are saying Pinke. I do respect your opinions and I do wish to fully understand your perspective.

Thanks I suppose. I'm always at least curious with how tenacious you are about the moon. Is a fun thing to discuss I guess.

Most of your queries are kind of answered, discussed by DJW I guess, orrrrrrrr aren't really that complex to me. Sun baked camera is a sun baked camera to me. A camera used on a famous film is important to some people for example. To me it's just a camera. When it breaks it is discarded.

I guess my main question is for you Pinke : when NASA presents an Apollo image to you, do you question the veracity at all? Does NASA's program of digital revisionism pose any internal threats or dilemmas to your professional or ethical boundaries?

First question is a trick question? I entertain what you and others say, and look when I'm compelled.

Second question. Is all about purpose and such like. 1.9 gb per scan is huge, and the university is choosing how to use its resources based on learning strategy and overall outcome. They likely want media outlets etc ... to actually use the imagery and credit them. The plates with the reseau marks are already available. Do the marks have any use in such a large scan? Likely not.

Removing abberations and blur from star photography to make a chart for example is not historical revision or propaganda. Nor is stiching the photos together or removing measuring markers. Nor is removing print patterns from a newspaper for a documentary (commonly held as 'truth') ... I could go on and on ...

I have books and essays and things like this one the subject of the lens and truth / photography and truth / digital media and truth ... We've touched on it before, but if you actually said you were interested I could provide things for you via U2U.

Getting an image 'in the can' requires decisions about truth almost immediately. Even analog film printed images have had decisions made before they get out the camera. Post process is actually not much different an activity. It's a conversation that has been going on for hundreds of years; it's taught in under grad uni courses these days.

The very short answer is no, it does not bother me that the marks are removed nor does it have any bearing to me on the moonlanding discussion really.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by Pinke

 

I do not follow your logic on the crime scene, lets just turn it like this, the government is a known pedophile, if any kids goes missing the police will probably check if the government has them (the logic is the same, not a fallacy, the behavior should be presumed as experience shows that there is a greater risk of recurrence) .

We're actually kind of agreeing, I just don't see why so much weight is put on this point by people. I don't think we should derail much more but simply a less emotionally charged example ...

Alan is a liar, so Alan just lied is not proof or perhaps even that significant statistically based to reality. Governments have to tell some truth at least to get away with lying in the first place, therefore in my view I don't think it's even amazingly likely the moon landing was a lie. I guess I just don't understand why so much weight is put on 'government cannot be trusted' parts of moon landing discussions.

Even a serial killer has to not kill most of the time to actually have long term success. Icky example though ...

reply to post by Pinke


I think that we get a more "guttural" response in regards to the moon issue is because how incredible it is for those that have spent even some minor effort attempting to understand how that purported even could have taken place in the context, time frame and with the technology available at the time. Like any other issue fantastic claims require fantastic evidences. In this case we had an almost monopoly on the source of information and until today no one repeated or has gone above the feat, that along seems strange to most people.

There is also no equality from both sides of the argument. On one we have a governmental institution making a claim that is supported by a multitude of other state and civilian institutions, on the other we have smaller interests, scientists, inquiring minds and just crazies all mixed together in requiring answers, to mostly good questions.

I think that the setting (we are in ATS) and that disparity in relation is what makes the noise level seem disproportional. That and the fact that like in many other subjects the government fails to address the real inquires put forward.

The event is often referred as the epitome of what humans can archive but at the same time how hard it contrasts with any other achievement in the next few decades, and on that particular field until today...

reply to post by Panic2k11

There is also no equality from both sides of the argument. On one we have a governmental institution making a claim that is supported by a multitude of other state and civilian institutions, on the other we have smaller interests, scientists, inquiring minds and just crazies all mixed together in requiring answers, to mostly good questions.

It has nothing to do with authority in the sense that you are implying. Sending human beings to the Moon involves a large number of physical (and economic) constraints. Overcoming these requires specific engineering solutions and would have predictable results. All the documentation that NASA provides conforms to these requirements and expectations. People who question the historicity of the program generally betray a lack of understanding of these requirements, the necessary engineering and the recorded results. They then make arguments from incredulity and speculate idly without furnishing any evidence for their claims.

For the record, I enjoy these threads because, on rare occasions, questions are posed that inspire me to research aspects of the historical record I had previously not explored. I don't think anyone here is under the delusion that NASA was entirely free from political considerations or did not control information to maintain a positive public image. Their management style could be brutal, and their ties to the defense industry probably tempted more than one employee to engage in activities of questionable ethics. And, yes, some of their early personnel might not have fared too well at Nuremberg. That doesn't mean they couldn't build rockets; on the contrary, it proves they could build rockets well enough to earn a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card!

reply to post by DJW001

It has nothing to do with authority in the sense that you are implying

I was stating my opinion and I strongly disagree with your assumed authority on the subject (no fun intended).

The reasons why there is so much "doubt" or "nonacceptance of the original story" today has many reasons, so many that I doubt that anyone can claim to fully understand the motivation. If I was to find a root cause I would put it generally in the continued erosion of trust in government and specifically in the fruit of the propaganda that oversold the space dream that ultimately failed to be realized.

All the documentation that NASA provides conforms to these requirements and expectations.

Note really, that is one source of the issues, especially when talking about simple things like photographic records like what this thread is covering (to what I don't see any problem if the originals will also remain available). Have you objectively seen the videos I pointed out (some of the points of criticism is about lack of proper information and even consistency).

People who question the historicity of the program generally betray a lack of understanding of these requirements, the necessary engineering and the recorded results. They then make arguments from incredulity and speculate idly without furnishing any evidence for their claims.

I agree that many things should not be cause for much of the noise but you continue to place the blame in the public, and that is not fair you could blame the education system or even NASA for not doing a great service in providing a consistent and accessible record of events that even the dumbest person would be able to fallow. In fact many of the more mundane doubts seems to be generated by newcomers into the discussion. Not everyone should be required to do heavy lifting research to find out the potency of the LEM engine and why the regolith does not seem to move as it is shown to do in other images (this is basic stuff that baffles most persons).

In the video series I pointed out as the best collection regarding the exposure of the issues (in terms of effort and availability for rational dialog) there are points that goes beyond most peoples heads (like the radiation section or the rocks), I doubt that many people will put such effort in researching the issues. But simple stuff like how the death of the astronauts (in actual mission) would have doomed the purported (political) objective of the moon race. It does not seem right when faced with the knowledge that we had at the time regarding the space environment or solar activity, this is something that is extremely hard to understand even to the most simplest mind.

I think no one doubts that NASA can get a rocked to the moon (even then or now), that never seems to be an issue, there is mostly an unanimity that NASA could soon after replicate all of the Soviet feats. Have you seen a footage compassion (can't remember where I saw it) between the German movie "A voyage to the moon" and the moon landing coverage ? Uncannily similar (even if I understand that the presentation I saw was partial)...

reply to post by Pinke

The very short answer is no, it does not bother me that the marks are removed nor does it have any bearing to me on the moonlanding discussion really.

Great reply, Pinke, you have essentially drawn out for us a line in the lunar regolith.

You stated it plainly "it does not bother me". I am on the other side, "it bothers me".

Why does this bother me? For many reasons that are all legitimate criticisms.

Here is a paper discussing the ethics of photojournalism. It says that color balancing and cropping techniques are acceptable, up to a certain limit. However, "dodge and burn", is stepping over the line. NASA has been "dodging and burning" with Apollo images for 43 years! Source conferences.arts.usyd.edu.au...

I'm not even going to quote this paper because it is a good read in it's entirety. I encourage you to check it out, it is thought provoking with regard to the topic of this thread.

It speaks directly to the situation that NASA has created through this legal agreement with Arizona State University.

This is a tremendous risk for NASA to take. Why would they take this risk of violating the ethics of photojournalism when they reasonably should know that cut & paste clearly crosses that line?

Removing the reseau patterns from Apollo images is, in my opinion, the act of a guilty party to cover up an embarrassing chapter of American contemporary history, i.e., Nixon's Apollo.

reply to post by DJW001

I don't think anyone here is under the delusion that NASA was entirely free from political considerations or did not control information to maintain a positive public image. Their management style could be brutal, and their ties to the defense industry probably tempted more than one employee to engage in activities of questionable ethics. And, yes, some of their early personnel might not have fared too well at Nuremberg. That doesn't mean they couldn't build rockets; on the contrary, it proves they could build rockets well enough to earn a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card!

Speaking of questionable ethics... NASA's removal of the reseau pattern marks from Apollo images is an insult to the relationship of trust that must exist between any government agency and the public.


Source chiefcounsel.ksc.nasa.gov...

I would like to have "complete confidence in the integrity" of NASA;s Apollo images but when they are actively and vitally engaged in behavior which blatantly violates the ethical standard of photojournalism then I have a duty to express my dissent about it. That is why this thread exists.

NASA made a deal with ASU. The productive output of this agreement will be total propaganda : 1.9GB altered images of Apollo with the reseau patterns removed.

DJW, this is a disgusting ethical situation, which NASA has created by it's own private agenda, it is not something that you want to support or defend.

The reseau pattern marks have become, over 43 years, the quintessential elements of the historical Apollo images; by removing the black crosses NASA has signalled to us fervently and violently that they don't give a sh*t about the ethics of professional photojournalism; they will "dodge and burn" and they will cut & paste.

Pinke has definitively drawn the line in the sand (in the lunar regolith). (It is a very good line).

It bothers me, it doesn't bother Pinke. It doesn't bother you DJW.But NASA is doing a good job of destroying it's own credibility in regard to Nixon's Apollo.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

The reseau pattern marks have become, over 43 years, the quintessential elements of the historical Apollo images; by removing the black crosses NASA has signalled to us fervently and violently that they don't give a sh*t about the ethics of professional photojournalism; they will "dodge and burn" and they will cut & paste.

I'll bet you went berzerk when Apple changed their logo, too. You can still get the photos with the reseau marks if you want them, so stop whining.

I'll be respectful, but I'm a little disappointed you quote mined rather than familiarizing yourself with the main arguments involved as offered/suggested.

Not being arrogant, but I'm fairly familiar with literature on this subject and you had to dumpster dive to dig up the paper you did. No disrespect to the author but it does not match reality.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Here is a paper discussing the ethics of photojournalism. It says ... [sic] that "dodge and burn", is stepping over the line.

I'll make this quick because it's a massive side step. I've seen both tools used in:

- Crime Scene/Court room Forensics
- Science
- Journalism

Can actually be good to correct problems, or just enhance detail etc ...

This document will also give some journalistic perspective: Photo Manipulation Policies

I'm not even going to quote this paper because it is a good read in it's entirety. I encourage you to check it out, it is thought provoking with regard to the topic of this thread.

I'll be a bit nicer, but it's not like I need an education on papers I've already read. Plz quote next time.

NPPA Code of Ethics:

Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.

Source

This is a tremendous risk for NASA to take. Why would they take this risk of violating the ethics of photojournalism

They didn't. Nor did the university. Nor would anyone using these images.

Science-wise they actually haven't violated anything either. The removal of the reseau marks is clearly documented and doesn't cause issue with any scientific use currently by these images. If a scientist used these images and neglected to read up on the work done on them before use they're probably unemployed.

Enjoy.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

The reseau pattern marks have become, over 43 years, the quintessential elements of the historical Apollo images; by removing the black crosses NASA has signalled to us fervently and violently that they don't give a sh*t about the ethics of professional photojournalism; they will "dodge and burn" and they will cut & paste.

I'll bet you went berzerk when Apple changed their logo, too. You can still get the photos with the reseau marks if you want them, so stop whining.

Nice ad hominem and switcher-oo there DJW. When will I expect to have access to these 1.9GB files?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Two pounds is huge in space launches. I'll bet the guy was nervous.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Nice ad hominem and switcher-oo there DJW. When will I expect to have access to these 1.9GB files?

Point of information: this is your thread; you tell us.

Is it ethical for NASA/ASU to spray paint the Apollo images and remove the reseau pattern marks from them?

No. It is not ethical.

In my OP I quoted Barbara Baker Burrows who is the 40 year veteran of Life magazine. Later in the thread I quoted a paper that stated unequivocally that "dodge and burn" is stepping over the boundary line of photojournalistic integrity.

Elsewhere in this thread I have quoted the NASA ethics training pdf that acknowledges the relationship of trust that exists between the people and any government agency.

So far in this thread I have seen a weak defense from the Apollo crowd. A very weak defense, indeed

The NASA crowd are clearly in error for defending the outsourced production of this Apollo propaganda. In my opinion these images are no longer trustworthy and this violates an explicit agreement between the public and any government agency, such as NASA.

STOP the spray painting of Apollo images!!!!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

The NASA crowd are clearly in error for defending the outsourced production of this Apollo propaganda. In my opinion these images are no longer trustworthy and this violates an explicit agreement between the public and any government agency, such as NASA.

For the umpteenth time, they are not altering the original negatives and there will be many, many generations of un-retouched prints and scans freely available. It is your hysterical posturing that is weak... and propagandistic.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

The NASA crowd are clearly in error for defending the outsourced production of this Apollo propaganda. In my opinion these images are no longer trustworthy and this violates an explicit agreement between the public and any government agency, such as NASA.

Then here's a slight suggestion, instead of using these retouched images as "proof" of your delusions, why not just use the original, untouched pictures that are available to anyone with access to a computer with an internet connection?
You seem to be under the misinformed assumption that after these photos are retouched, the negatives will be tossed in an incinerator and then some shadowy government figures will get in their NWO time machine built with alien technology and go back in time to destroy all the original prints to make sure nobody knows that there ever was a reseau plate.

double post