More Moon fakery

Where do I stand on the ethics of digital photojournalism?

I think the Apollo lunar Hasselblad 70mm cross-hairs should always be preserved, and faithfully reproduced, from the negatives, and only those images would be the true standard of all subsequent digital reproductions, with the cross-hairs intact.[/] . That goes for the Pixel Flag and the Black Blob LRV, too.

Where do YOU stand on the ethics of digital photojournalism?

Is it OK to sharpen some areas and blur other areas?

I'd like to read some Apollo Defenders actually defend the Pixel Flag and the Black Blob LRV. So far they have all been dancing around the controversy of not knowing how many cameras went/came back from the "moon". Now the Defenders are stuck defending NASA's contract with ASU to engage in the practice of controlling the narratives... this contract between NASA and ASU is a smoking gun. All of you Apollo Defenders should just probably just give up.

Removing the cross-hairs from NASA Apollo images is exactly the same as Winston Smith working at the Ministry of Truth.

Winston Smith works as a clerk in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth, where his job is to rewrite historical documents so they match the constantly ... source Wiki en.wikipedia.org...

SayonaraJupiter
Where do I stand on the ethics of digital photojournalism?

The Apollo images are not digital in their original form. They existed in hard copy format for decades before the internet. The LRO photographs are not photojournalism, they are research.

I think the Apollo lunar Hasselblad 70mm cross-hairs should always be preserved, and faithfully reproduced, from the negatives, and only those images would be the true standard of all subsequent digital reproductions, with the cross-hairs intact.[/] . That goes for the Pixel Flag and the Black Blob LRV, too.

They are, all over the internet and in hard copy form. You are the only person implying that every copy of every image is being edited. This is a lie.

Where do YOU stand on the ethics of digital photojournalism?

Is it OK to sharpen some areas and blur other areas?

Who says areas are being blurred out? Evidence?

I sharpen pretty much every holiay snap I ever take. This does not mean I did not take them or that the events I photographed didn't happen.

I'd like to read some Apollo Defenders actually defend the Pixel Flag and the Black Blob LRV.

You haven't been reading the thread have you? The LRO images show Apollo hardware exactly where they should be, along with all the rocks and craters Apollo photographed.

So far they have all been dancing around the controversy of not knowing how many cameras went/came back from the "moon".

Nope. There are perfectly reasonable explanations that don't involve babbling about Nixon, smoking gun, blowing the whole thing wide open, and all the other pseudo-journalistic claptrap you wheel out on a daily basis.

Now the Defenders are stuck defending NASA's contract with ASU to engage in the practice of controlling the narratives... this contract between NASA and ASU is a smoking gun. All of you Apollo Defenders should just probably just give up.

Pseudo-journalistic claptrap. What you should probably do is drop the cliches and produce some evidence.

Removing the cross-hairs from NASA Apollo images is exactly the same as Winston Smith working at the Ministry of Truth.

No, it is some images having cross hairs removed, with that process publicly stated and explained. All the unedited originals are freely available. How about you compare the edited and unedited and show is anything of any importance other than the crosses that have been removed? Take your time.

How about you look at all the ones taken from CSM cameras that never had crosses in the first place, the ones showing Earthrises and the lunar far side that can be dated precisely and couldn't have been taken anywhere else? The 16mm and TV footage that contained no crosses but do contain rocks and craters and hardware that can be identified in modern LRO photographs?

Evidence. Produce your evidence to back your claims. I have, where is yours? What work have you put in to back up your claims? None.

SayonaraJupiter
Where do I stand...

I think the Apollo lunar...

embhasis mine
Here in lies the problem. You apply your own biased opinion as a standard. I'm happy you admid it thought.

Where do YOU stand on the ethics of digital photojournalism?

Manipulation, ie. altering the reality of the images is what crosses the ethics line. If you'd remove the crosshairs and claim they never excisted then you'd be right to be outraged. They haven't done that thought.

SayonaraJupiter
I'd like to read some Apollo Defenders actually defend the Pixel Flag and the Black Blob LRV.

We don't need to defend anything. You came up with the notion that LRO images are altered, you need to provide evidence of that.

I've just had a look at various LRO imagery of the Apollo 15 site. The LRV doesn't always appear black; at low sun angles it's white. The flag shadow moves position at different sun angles, giving a good indication that it is indeed flag shadow rather than some random part of the terrain.

Have a go yourself: featured-sites.lroc.asu.edu...
At low sun angles, the flag shadow looks quite dramatic: featured-sites.lroc.asu.edu...



Same story with ASU and haircrosses - you're inventing strawmen and then accuse us of fighting against them. There are no strawmen.

Removing crosshairs simply produces yet another digital set of the images, in addition to all the sets that have the crosshairs and have been in existence for decades.

reply to post by wildespace


I understand the idea behind exposure and the problem of capturing both the well lit Earth or Moon and the distant and faint stars. Since the video I provided takes issue with that, I will accept responsibility and I agree with you that the lack of stars in the pictures does not constitute fakery.

The masks exposed when the shots were enhanced digitally, I found to be worthy of discussion as possible fakes.

Stackpot
reply to post by wildespace

 

I understand the idea behind exposure and the problem of capturing both the well lit Earth or Moon and the distant and faint stars. Since the video I provided takes issue with that, I will accept responsibility and I agree with you that the lack of stars in the pictures does not constitute fakery.

The masks exposed when the shots were enhanced digitally, I found to be worthy of discussion as possible fakes.

The masking effect might be due to the particular versions of the images he was using, probably low-quality versions that had been compressed again and again. He might have even faked this effect himself.

I used versions I found myself through Google, and they show no masking when enhanced in brightness or contrast.
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

reply to post by wildespace


I'm pretty sure I have an answer about the so-called "masking", but I want to make sure I'm talking about the right thing. I don't have time to review the thread or watch a whole video. Can someone provide me with a link and/or a video time-stamp so I can verify what you're talking about?

Thanks in advance.

Stackpot
reply to post by wildespace

 

I understand the idea behind exposure and the problem of capturing both the well lit Earth or Moon and the distant and faint stars. Since the video I provided takes issue with that, I will accept responsibility and I agree with you that the lack of stars in the pictures does not constitute fakery.

The masks exposed when the shots were enhanced digitally, I found to be worthy of discussion as possible fakes.

You should think about this, did the guy that made the youtube video have a scan of the ORIGINAL Hasselblad negative, I will save you the trouble of answering NO.

He has taken an image from the web which he saved (what format was it saved in ) before he looked at it with his software every extra step can change an image most people with NO background in the subject wont know that, then they except the BS by these youtube IDIOT'S!!!

Interesting, I would like to hear from the pro-moon landing contingent on this information from the Ukraine.

Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images

University Kharkiv by OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D.c
Previously of the Department of Physics and Technology
Kharkov State University,
www.aulis.com...

Stackpot
Interesting, I would like to hear from the pro-moon landing contingent on this information from the Ukraine.

Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images

University Kharkiv by OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D.c
Previously of the Department of Physics and Technology
Kharkov State University,
www.aulis.com...

I saw this other day and had a look at the images he used and how he used them.

In the example he used to illustrate the technique he picked the most distant fixed object in the photograph. In the Apollo 15 photograph there is no indication as to how he has chosen the fixed point or which fixed point he used. It is quite evident from the images that the photographer has moved nearer the LM, but despite this the analysis seems to assume that the LM is the same distance away. If you align the two images using the most distant point you get this, which behaves very differently:



He gives no calculations at all for this, despite giving calculations in his example. His example also makes it clear that he knows the distances involved, whereas he has made incorrect assumptions about the Apollo images.

He does exactly the same with the second image set he uses - aligning images in the foreground rather than fixing on the most distant object. Here's the same two images aligned using the most distant feature:



You have to do quite a bit of rotation to get the two images aligned, but he doesn't seem to have made any allowances for this. Nor is there any allowance for distortion from the lens used.

They then go on to weave a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors and image distortiosns with absolutely no calculations presented, and the only attempt the make to explain the method is by linking to another page in Russian that uses the same photographs.

What they would be better served doing is spending less time trying to bend the results to fit their assumptions trying to explain how they made the alleged sound stage, given that they had no idea what rocks to put in them.

You might also want to look at this page

www.apollohoax.net...

which discusses the article.

Finally, it's aulis, who are liars and only want your money.

reply to post by onebigmonkey


Thanks for your timely responce, I'll take it into consideration.

reply to post by onebigmonkey


I took a look at the forum page (Hoaxnet) and was taken aback, never really seen such a biased forum before, maybe I didn't dig deep enough, but I didn't see anything but a bunch guys patting themselves on the back while criticizing the other camp. They don't like Dave Mcgowan much, I can tell you that much. The first board calls all dissenters liars. I don't understand the need to be so deeply entrenched in an argument to the point you fall into a trap and start to generalize.

My mind is not completely made up on this issue, if I were to have to wager, I would go with my instincts on this one. But all it would take for me to switch around would be some really solid images of those trips we took to our beautiful satellite. I have to believe that photographic and telescopic technologies are getting to the point where we'll finally see a modern, clear image of the Apollo sites, or, hold on to your seat, we actually DO send a man to the moon lol. I think we must be getting close to a tipping point on this argument.

Last thought, I just read somewhere that NASA plans a trip to Europa and that the unmanned craft will have drilling capabilities to go deep in search of life in the subterranean oceans there. I believe it will be launched in the mid 20's Dang, that will be like 55 years without another manned mission to our nearest neighbor in space. Do you have any idea how bad that looks for your argument? I mean on a very basic common sense lever?

Stackpot
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

I took a look at the forum page (Hoaxnet) and was taken aback, never really seen such a biased forum before, maybe I didn't dig deep enough, but I didn't see anything but a bunch guys patting themselves on the back while criticizing the other camp. They don't like Dave Mcgowan much, I can tell you that much. The first board calls all dissenters liars. I don't understand the need to be so deeply entrenched in an argument to the point you fall into a trap and start to generalize.

Are people who support the Apollo missions not allowed to have opinions? By and large the debate on the legitimacy or otherwise of the Apollo missions is entirely dominated by websites arguing they didn't go, and where the anti-Apollo brigade are free to hurl pretty much whatever insults they like at people who do actually understand the missions and the science and engineering involved and where moderating teams deliberately censor and purge members who don't toe the party (ie everyone hates NASA) line. You should maybe join the David Icke forum so you can see a related thread in their 'Rant Room' if you want to see proponents of an argument patting themselves on the back.

My mind is not completely made up on this issue, if I were to have to wager, I would go with my instincts on this one. But all it would take for me to switch around would be some really solid images of those trips we took to our beautiful satellite. I have to believe that photographic and telescopic technologies are getting to the point where we'll finally see a modern, clear image of the Apollo sites, or, hold on to your seat, we actually DO send a man to the moon lol. I think we must be getting close to a tipping point on this argument.

Please take some time to look at my website (see my signature). You will see solid analysis of the photos, film and TV footage. Places like aulis are not the only ones that are prepared to put time in looking at the Apollo record.

Last thought, I just read somewhere that NASA plans a trip to Europa and that the unmanned craft will have drilling capabilities to go deep in search of life in the subterranean oceans there. I believe it will be launched in the mid 20's Dang, that will be like 55 years without another manned mission to our nearest neighbor in space. Do you have any idea how bad that looks for your argument? I mean on a very basic common sense lever?

"Your argument"? That suggests your mind isn't as un-made up as you claimed.

Why is it bad? Why does technology directly descended from the exploratory work done during the Apollo era look bad for the Apollo missions?

You will find very few people who support the Apollo record who disagree that it is a damned shame we do not have a manned presence on the moon. Sadly, I am not the person deciding the budget. In an age of limited finances there is only room for one or the other, and there are more scientific rewards to be had for much less financial outlay in an unmanned mission to Europa than there are sending more people to the moon.

We will return to the moon, and I think it will be soon. I firmly believe that the Apollo record will be vindicated, but we will probably have to have it translated from Chinese, and the internet will still be full of people who didn't work hard at school dismissing the efforts of those who did.

reply to post by onebigmonkey


I detect a tinge of trauma in your essay. I am not mean spirited and consider myself open minded. I didn't say those things you speak of and I can form my own opinions without David Icke's help. This debate doesn't have to be a traumatic ordeal and just because we disagree doesn't mean I didn't do well in school either. We just see things differently. You seem to be confident and that's good, don't allow yourself to generalize or group those with differing opinions together, it doesn't fly.

I get the feeling that we are just spinning our wheels anyways. I think if we are either preaching to the choir, or trying to teach an old dog new tricks. The key is with the younger generation, and that's probably bad news for your side, as it seems NASA, for all it's done good, is losing the hearts and minds of the youth.

They don't believe we went for many of the reasons I have mentioned, first and foremost the conspicuous lack of return visits in so many years.

Stackpot
They don't believe we went for many of the reasons I have mentioned, first and foremost the conspicuous lack of return visits in so many years.

I addressed that in a post that you ignored on page 13. To repeat:

Stackpot
How come we never returned?

That's easy. The decision to stop going was purely political. Are you going to sit there with a straight-face and say political decisions usually make sense?

We explore, leaving a trail that turns to a road and return to exploit. We don't slap the dust off our hands and say "been there, done that".

Sometimes we do. After Britain & Norway raced to the South Pole in 1912, no one set foot there for more than 45 years. After two men visited the deepest ocean on earth in 1960, no one went back for more than 5 decades.

Your arguments are simply a long list of thing that you do not understand. There's nothing wrong with not knowing things, but I do find it troubling that you seem to have no interest in actually learning about the things you're arguing about.

"To avoid changing one’s mind, the person merely avoids advancing their understanding of the topic at hand."

You make arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity. You reject or ignore all answers. The motto of this site is "deny ignorance". Instead, you embrace ignorance, and cling to it tenaciously. Despite your claims to the contrary, you clearly will not change your mind, no matter what the facts say.

You are not open-minded.

Saint Exupery
...Sometimes we do. After Britain & Norway raced to the South Pole in 1912, no one set foot there for more than 45 years. After two men visited the deepest ocean on earth in 1960, no one went back for more than 5 decades...

Exactly. "The Moon" was not the prize of the Moon race. The prize of the Moon race was being able to claim "We did it First".

I was young during the 1970s, but I was old enough to remember that both the public and the government were "gettng tired of" going to the Moon soon after the first landing. Even when Apollo 13 launched (only the third planned mission), the public and the government was already feeling a bit bored with the whole thing. In some ways, the near-tragedy helped rebew interest -- at least temporarily.

The 1970s was also a time of social upheaval. People began to wonder why the U.S. was spending billions on going to the moon when there were other problem back on Earth that could have used that money. A large number of U.S. taxpayers no longer wanted to be spending millions on the moon missions, and they wanted their elected officials to do something about it, PLUS the elected officials themselves no longer felt the need to keep going to the moon after they had already won the race...

...And that's what brought an end to Apollo.

wildespace

SayonaraJupiter
I'd like to read some Apollo Defenders actually defend the Pixel Flag and the Black Blob LRV.

I see nothing ! no rover, no flag, no nothing !

reply to post by onebigmonkey


Even simpler: Is there any additional information? (Assumes lotus position and disappears.)