Apollo 15 panorama - matching the rocks to the hi-res LRO image

Originally posted by jaffer44

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by jaffer44

I just don't believe what they show'd us. there is a lot of evidence of fake and edited footage.

Care to elaborate on this, I've yet to ever see evidence of fake/edited footage that wasn't presented as such.

one of the most obvious is the cross hairs that are missing and / or only half the cross hair.
That is one of the main easy to prove ones there are many more... but the cross hairs missing are in your face type stuff.

Are you suggesting that someone pasted white stripes onto a red flag?



White bleeding onto adjacent dark areas is common depending on how images are reproduced.

Here is something much more difficult to explain:
Is someone were tasked with faking several thousand photographs, why would they include resseau crosshairs when that would add more time and complexity to the task for little gain? And if they included resseau crosshairs, why wouldn't they add them at the end of the optical printing, instead of some intermediate step when errors would be more likely?

Hoax believers never think these things though. They see something they don't understand, then instead of trying to understand they just shout, "FAKE!" I do not understand this mentality.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by wildespace

Apollo 15 panorama:
www.flickr.com...

Could you tell us exactly how many images you used to create this panorama? And what were the NASA catalogue numbers, please?

edit on 11/11/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: add catalogue numbers

Actually, this particular image is a screenshot of the panorama in Google Earth. I chose it because I prefer the contrast levels and the ability to zoom in to the relevant parts.

The orignal frame scans and catalogue numbers are here: www.hq.nasa.gov...
They are from the Magazine 90/PP (B & W) Frames 12179-12328
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Relevant hi-res frames:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

reply to post by jaffer44


The cross hair problem is due to light bleeding have you ever turned the colour saturation up on a tv picture and a colour bleeds over ?

That used to be a real problem with tv pictures.

Here is an extreme example



Now do you think the sun is in front of the trees or behind them?

The tree trunks are thicker than a black line but part of them disappears now do you understand?

reply to post by DJW001


Ill check them out and let you no what I think thanks

reply to post by wmd_2008


I'm not so sure this one is a good argument some of the cross hair missing photos will show all cross hairs but were you see a smudge in the photo you also find half the cross missing we're it should be above the smudge.
wouldnt we see groups of cross hairs missing in photos or a section in the midle or something with what you explained ?
the cross hairs are on the lense so it should still show up even if the camera had trouble with the scene or it would be a problem in section not one fine point
Don't get me wrong I find this an interesting subject and look at all explanations so am interested in your answer.
I hope I managed to explain what I mean so you understand the question
NASA's big problem is dening everything almost no deep sky photos Etc are edited they go though stacking soft with hundred of photos with different filters to see the beautiful photos we see.
So why deny that they did it to the moon photos why not just say yep we edited it sorry and give what reason they like

reply to post by jaffer44


The bleeding out of fidicules has been done to death for decades, it's simply a thin black line being washed out by a bright white object, it's a photographic principle that's been known for over a century and if the photos were faked it would make no sense to lay down the fidicules first and then composite a photo after, any mildly competent graphic artist would put them on as a final step since the fidicules are the "top layer" anyways. As for the reflection(s) in visors care to elaborate as to what you mean by that links to photographs in question would be a major help.

Originally posted by jaffer44
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I'm not so sure this one is a good argument some of the cross hair missing photos will show all cross hairs but were you see a smudge in the photo you also find half the cross missing we're it should be above the smudge.
wouldnt we see groups of cross hairs missing in photos or a section in the midle or something with what you explained ?
the cross hairs are on the lense so it should still show up even if the camera had trouble with the scene or it would be a problem in section not one fine point
Don't get me wrong I find this an interesting subject and look at all explanations so am interested in your answer.
I hope I managed to explain what I mean so you understand the question
NASA's big problem is dening everything almost no deep sky photos Etc are edited they go though stacking soft with hundred of photos with different filters to see the beautiful photos we see.
So why deny that they did it to the moon photos why not just say yep we edited it sorry and give what reason they like

You have got lots of your facts wrong, for one the cross hairs were NOT on the lens!!!

They were on the Reseau plate.




Here is a link read it when YOU understand then post back!

Cross hairs

When you post back give an example of one of the pictures you don't understand!

OP, your selected image www.flickr.com... was cropped from the gigapan prepared by Patrick Auld for NASA AMES in 2008.

Here is the link :

gigapan.com...

Take a good look at these other boulders... on the eastern edge of Dune crater.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Duplicated objects can happen when stitching photos together into a panorama. Do you have any experience assembling panoramic images?

Originally posted by jra
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Duplicated objects can happen when stitching photos together into a panorama. Do you have any experience assembling panoramic images?

The crappy 2008 Patrick Auld photoshopped gigapixel panorama courtesy of NASA Ames is a work of art that is photoshopped from Jim Irwin's partial pan sequence at Station 4. AS-90-12237 through AS-90-12248.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Why don't you give it a go yourself

This was done with images AS15-90-12239 to AS15-90-12248 (low res versions) using Microsoft ICE (a free download)

Did this in less than 2 mins including downloading the images!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Why don't you give it a go yourself

This was done with images AS15-90-12239 to AS15-90-12248 (low res versions) using Microsoft ICE (a free download)

Did this in less than 2 mins including downloading the images!

I'm (no joking!) impressed. Yet it's still a work of art just as much as Patrick Auld's version is.

Here is a third panorama of Dune Crater we can look at.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

146:30:33 Station 4 Pan - High Resolution Version ( 745k )
Assembly by Mike Constantine.

Please Notice that in the Constantine version he has made the artistic choice to photoshopagraphically remove out the lens flairs, he has re-shaped the mountains, he also left in some has duplicate rocks.

Any serious Apollo researcher would have to look at these 3 panaromas objectively and say "that's nice artwork, but the panorama does not prove that Jim Irwin was on the moon."

Originally posted by wmd_2008

It's very interesting that all the hoax believers are NOT paying a visit here, they don't want to draw attention to this thread we should try and change that don't you think

uhmm...sorry, but i can't see the "match" in these 2 shots...the red lines do not help a bit....the LRO shot is from so far way, it could be from any part of the moon. it shows no collabortive detail of any distinction that matches up, it's not that i don't believe the veracity of what you're trying to explain, it's just not evident in the examples given

reply to post by wmd_2008


Why are we always expected to believe any photo is real (or not) because someone says so. The Apollo images cannot be real. If they were, they wouldn't be spending all this time and energy trying to convince us all of their simple and obvious "truth". What a joke. It has become so embarrassing for us all.

Here's a Gigapan of an Apollo 17 site. I stitched the images together quickly and cropped it. I used this thread (the OP's links) to get the raw images. Pretty cool. And any schmoe can remove those cross-hairs. It's just a pain in the butt unless you have an algorithm or script, which I know nothing about.

Here's the link to the zoomable Gigapan.

gigapan.com...

Thanks, OP! Might be a new hobby of mine or something. There are also Gigapans of Mars in my collection at that site.

Very small preview:

This was done digitally, of course, and I tried to clean up some schmutz. Maybe one day I will take the cross-hairs out. I also tried my best to (literally) diffuse the situation with the sun coming in too bright.

And before anyone goes nuts, yes - I did color (or blacken) the sky (where there was missing data) with the paint brush in Photoshop. And there are a few stitching problems, but all in all, it's cool to digitally panoramize these 30 year old images and see the results.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Any serious Apollo researcher would have to look at these 3 panaromas objectively and say "that's nice artwork, but the panorama does not prove that Jim Irwin was on the moon."

What about the individual frames, do they prove Jim was on the moon?

Every time you stitch a panorama out of individual shots, you HAVE to do some photoshopping. Especially when some of the frames are slightly tilted or have optical artifacts like lens flares or sun glare.

You're singing your old tune again, "if an image has been altered in any way, we can't trust it."

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by wmd_2008

It's very interesting that all the hoax believers are NOT paying a visit here, they don't want to draw attention to this thread we should try and change that don't you think

uhmm...sorry, but i can't see the "match" in these 2 shots...the red lines do not help a bit....the LRO shot is from so far way, it could be from any part of the moon. it shows no collabortive detail of any distinction that matches up, it's not that i don't believe the veracity of what you're trying to explain, it's just not evident in the examples given

edit on 13-11-2012 by jimmyx because: spell

Sorry, but I did my homework. It's not just any part of the moon, it's the Dune crater where Station 4 of the Apollo 15 mission was. You can find it in Google Moon, then range in on the same location at target.lroc.asu.edu... I was exploring that Apollo site in detail both in Google Moon and in that link, which is why I decided to find matching features.

Here's a wider shot of the LRO imagery:
www.flickr.com...
with the Google Moon screenshot for comparison:
www.flickr.com...

reply to post by seigfried

Why are we always expected to believe any photo is real (or not) because someone says so. The Apollo images cannot be real. If they were, they wouldn't be spending all this time and energy trying to convince us all of their simple and obvious "truth". What a joke. It has become so embarrassing for us all.

If the Apollo images are fake, why do you need to spend so much time and energy creating sock puppets trying to convince everyone else of your personal "truth." It certainly is embarrassing for you, Patrick.

reply to post by impaired


That's a great-looking panorama, thanks! Could you please make a panorama from these frames (EVA1 at the LM)
www.hq.nasa.gov...
frames 22493 to 22520

I'm asking because the panorama they have is a bit crap:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by seigfried
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Why are we always expected to believe any photo is real (or not) because someone says so. The Apollo images cannot be real. If they were, they wouldn't be spending all this time and energy trying to convince us all of their simple and obvious "truth". What a joke. It has become so embarrassing for us all.

So you're saying we shouldn't believe an image is real because someone says so (and backs it up with mountains of evidence) But we should believe it's fake because you say so and have zero proof with which to back it up? Hypocritical, don't you think?