It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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?
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) .
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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'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.
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.
This is a tremendous risk for NASA to take. Why would they take this risk of violating the ethics of photojournalism
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?
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.
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.