What's wrong with this moonlanding picture?

reply to post by ProudBird


...which was already linked in this post, half-way up the page.

reply to post by Saint Exupery

...which was already linked...

Oh, THANKS!!! (lol!!).....Yes indeed, yes indeed....yes indeed.

I missed it.....and tore my heart out, following in others' fuutstcheps?? ** ( )

Well....great minds.....oh, wait....too cliche'.....(sorry).....will slink away.......

**

reply to post by Akezzon


All photos have that line around them, but people usually crop that part.

If you go to The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth you will see what I mean.

That site has the best and less processed Apollo photos that I have seen, here is a high resolution of that photo.

PS: the photo will be removed from the online area in some hours, but if you go to the page I posted at the top of this post and click on the "Request" button they will put it back online for another time period.

reply to post by reeferman


Try that on the image from my previous post and you will see that there aren't any JPEG squares like in the photo from the OP.

From what I have seen, most "effected" photos are not from NASA but from other sites.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Akezzon

 

All photos have that line around them, but people usually crop that part.

If you go to The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth you will see what I mean.

That site has the best and less processed Apollo photos that I have seen, here is a high resolution of that photo.

PS: the photo will be removed from the online area in some hours, but if you go to the page I posted at the top of this post and click on the "Request" button they will put it back online for another time period.

Ok. why were the rainbow colors removed ?

reply to post by Ove38


???

Ok. why were the rainbow colors removed ?

Again, we are talking about an image...an ORIGINAL IMAGE that has been altered (as noted previously) by second, third, fourth, fifth or sixteenth parities (pick a number....any number)....

How difficult is this to comprehend??

reply to post by Ove38


You need to ask that to the person(s) that did the change.

It looks like someone thought "it looks too 'washed out', I will add more contrast", resulting in something like this:



Then they thought "now it looks too colourful, let me reduce the saturation", resulting in this:


Then they thought "it's a little dark, I will add some brightness", resulting in this final image.


But this is just a supposition, I don't really know what happened.

reply to post by ArMaP


Your link above of the original tiff data was plenty for those who wish to find the closest thing to the source. I stupidly screwed up linking that and figured it would be reminded to those who choose to ask inane questions instead of independent research, to 'prove' points, or more so, to raise stupid speculative nuances when they really have nothing better to add.

Thanks for that source ArMaP.

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by ArMaP

 

Your link above of the original tiff data was plenty for those who wish to find the closest thing to the source. I stupidly screwed up linking that and figured it would be reminded to those who choose to ask inane questions instead of independent research, to 'prove' points, or more so, to raise stupid speculative nuances when they really have nothing better to add.

Thanks for that source ArMaP.

Haven't you learned (You've been here long enough) That most don't want to research properly, they want some one else to tell them(/Sarcasm) Most of the photos on the Moon hoax sites have been recycled so often that it's a wonder they still have any information (Actual picture) rather than just a look like an old TV tuned to a non-broadcasting channel, for those that remember that long ago for those that don't it was visual static or more commonly called "snow".

Nothing to write home about...

Never A Straight Answer: a Google search on AS11-40-5886 reveals NASA Apollo images are totally faked, enhanced, cropped, color-adjusted, illusions of reality.

The only full-body picture of Neil Armstrong on the surface of the "moon" is AS11-40-5886.

How many "official" NASA versions of AS11-40-5886 can co-exist at one time?

Here are just two examples, side by side. Notice the difference? If you don't see the obvious difference between these "official" NASA images then you need to have your eyes checked.




Let us do a simple Google search AS11-40-5886 and find out! There are many different "official" versions that are located on .gov servers.

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...

-------

As you can plainly see, NASA does not have a single, definitive version of this image, although they allow this image to be published with lens flare, they keep different versions on different servers, therefore, NASA cannot give a straight answer with regard to the authenticity of any of these digital images.

Ipso facto,

All debate regarding these images hinges on a single test - which of these images is closest to the negative?

We shall never know the answer to this question because NASA never gives a straight answer.

The 1 thing that has always puzzled me about the moon landing photos is armstrongs explanation of the landing.
He said he took controls because the landing zone the module was aiming at was full of large car sized boulders.
So he navigated away from it and touched it down...


... yet, in all the photos ive never seen a field full of large boulders, especially a field where you couldnt put down that small vehicle.

and in this photo, all i see is open barron land.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Ove38

 

You need to ask that to the person(s) that did the change.

Ok, who do we ask? Nobody at NASA has so far been willing to go on the public record and say "this digitally scanned image has been certified by me.".

I'll tell you : nobody at NASA will ever claim responsibility because these digital images are falsifications of reality.

Which image seems closer to reality, ArMaP? The image with lens flare or the darker image without lens flare?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Ok, who do we ask? Nobody at NASA has so far been willing to go on the public record and say "this digitally scanned image has been certified by me.".

I was answering about an image on a Harvard server, so the first possible point of contact would be Harvard.

Which image seems closer to reality, ArMaP? The image with lens flare or the darker image without lens flare?

First of all, the square ones, as that was the format used, as many of the versions available were cropped to remove the shadow area (more than 50% of that photo is black).
To me, the ones closer to reality are the brighter ones, as it's easy to make a darker photo from a bright photo than a brighter photo from a dark one.

The one closer to the truth (as usual) comes from the The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth, as we can see here (it will only be available for some hours, after that you have to go here and request it again), and one of the reasons is the fact that we see the whole frame, without any cropping. It's also the one that has the more neutral whites.

The second best, the one found on the Internet Archive, here.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
As you can plainly see, NASA does not have a single, definitive version of this image, although they allow this image to be published with lens flare, they keep different versions on different servers, therefore, NASA cannot give a straight answer with regard to the authenticity of any of these digital images.

Have you asked?

Originally posted by ArMaP
Have you asked?

In the example of AS11-40-5886 (the only full body image of Neil Armstrong on the "moon") I find that NASA is playing a very sophisticated shell game with the documentary evidence.

NASA operates all these different servers, containing at least a dozen versions, ie, different crops, different enhancements, some with enhanced lens flare, some without lens flare. This image you posted expires after a certain number of hours. That is even more troubling for NASA. This is beginning to look like a game of three-card monte where...

When the mark arrives at the Three-card Monte game, it is likely that a number of other players will be seen winning and losing money at the game. The people engaged in playing the game are often shills, confederates of the dealer who pretend to play so as to give the illusion of a straight gambling game.

Dealers employ sleight of hand and misdirection to prevent the mark from finding the queen. Source en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
NASA operates all these different servers, ...

I don't think they operate the LPI servers, although the LPI is connected to NASA, and I seriously doubt that they operate the servers of the private company that owns space.com.

... containing at least a dozen versions, ie, different crops, different enhancements, some with enhanced lens flare, some without lens flare.

I didn't see any enhanced lens flare, only a normal lens flare.

This image you posted expires after a certain number of hours. That is even more troubling for NASA. This is beginning to look like a game of three-card monte where...

You can request the image again, and you will get the same image, I have done that dozens of times, so I don't see where's the problem with that.

What I see is that you haven't answered the question you quoted: have you asked?

Originally posted by Akezzon
Found this image while using the phone-app StumbleUpon. First I just thought, "Ahh, what a nice picture. But then I noticed that the right side of the image looks weird. Like if a filter of some sort have been used but doesn't cover the whole image. Why would there be an effect filter applied to the image in the first place?

Here's the link
hea-www.harvard.edu...

Anyone have a good explanation why this is?

edit on 15-4-2012 by Akezzon because: spellcorrected

i don't know.. but ..

and I still don't see any blast crater nor dust on the LM....

looks 'swept clean'

reply to post by ArMaP


Why does NASA publish 2 different versions of the same NASA photo on 2 different official NASA servers?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Sorry, I don't understand what you mean with that post.