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.
Stackpot
reply to post by wmd_2008
I wasn't aware that being an amature phographer qualifies you as a forensic evidence expert. I'm sure you great with f-stops and exposure settings, but you're no expert on space flight, rest assured.
DJW001
I never posted that image, so I feel under no obligation to explain how it was made... and I do know exactly how it was made. I do not know how ASU plans to remove the reseau marks. Just Photoshop, probably. Now please explain why the reseau marks are relevant, given that the originals will always be available?
6. 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.
But if we just remove the lines, what is the big deal? Who is harmed? As far as I am concerned, we are all harmed by any lie, big or small.
I do not think the public cares if it is a little lie or a big lie As far as they are concerned, once the shutter has been tripped and the moment has been captured on film, in the context of news, we no longer have the right to change the content of the photo in any way.
Any change to a news photo - any violation of that moment - is a lie. Big or small, any lie damages your credibility. Source John Long NPPA Ethics Co-Chair and Past President
Stackpot
reply to post by wmd_2008
I wasn't aware that being an amature phographer qualifies you as a forensic evidence expert. I'm sure you great with f-stops and exposure settings, but you're no expert on space flight, rest assured.
SayonaraJupiter
This applies not only to the Apollo/Hasselblad/70mm negatives (each camera was equipped with a uniquely numbered reseau plate) but it also applies to the NASA/ASU/LRO "landing site" images which are post-processing, digital enhancements.
Stackpot
Lynn Radcliffe, who managed the facility at White Sands that was specially constructed to test and develop the LEM’s rocket engines, describes the technology required to land the lunar modules: “This was an unbelievable maneuver when you stop and think about it. You’re sitting on a column of thrust, just hovering there, like a, a helicopter, and then as you let it go, the throttle, a little bit, you lower it just a few feet per second until you make contact. All of this is an amazing set of requirements to put on anyone trying to design a rocket.”
Stackpot
Radcliffe is absolutely right; I did stop to think about it and it is unbelievable.
Stackpot
Oh, and to leave barely a mark in the silty moon dust too.
Stackpot
The combined computer power at mission control ...
Saint Exupery
Incidentally, if you find it "unbelievable" that a rocket can land on the Moon, do you therefore believe that the Soviet Luna 9, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21 & 24 probes, along with Surveyors 1, 3, 5,6 & 7 were also all faked?
SayonaraJupiter
Someone may have decades of camera experience... and violate the ethics of photojournalism. The NASA/ASU agreement to remove cross-hairs from Apollo images is a flagrant and willful violation of those ethics.
Stackpot
reply to post by onebigmonkey
I didn't "waive" illegitimate evidence, I provided a fairly well put together video raising some important questions as to manipulation. Where do you pompous windbags come up with your lines?
On the topic of feasibility of this fairy tail mission
To quote Dave McGowan:
Lynn Radcliffe, who managed the facility at White Sands that was specially constructed to test and develop the LEM’s rocket engines, describes the technology required to land the lunar modules: “This was an unbelievable maneuver when you stop and think about it. You’re sitting on a column of thrust, just hovering there, like a, a helicopter, and then as you let it go, the throttle, a little bit, you lower it just a few feet per second until you make contact. All of this is an amazing set of requirements to put on anyone trying to design a rocket.”
Radcliffe is absolutely right; I did stop to think about it and it is unbelievable. Oh, and to leave barely a mark in the silty moon dust too.
The combined computer power at mission control was roughly that of a 2005 laptop computer, all those monitors were run on a single main frame. The LEM had the computing power of a digital watch. It was an aluminum foil covered fantasy that went nowhere near the moon.
Horse manure.
SayonaraJupiter
NASA/ASU wants to have a full catalogue of Apollo images (sans-reseau, sans-cross-hairs, sans-fiducial marks) to brainwash the next generation of school kids and teachers who were born after 1972 and don't understand what the cross-hairs really mean:
Apollo lunar surface images taken with the Hasselblad 70mm cameras should have cross-hairs.
If any such image were found to not have the cross-hairs then that image is a undoubtedly a FRAUD.
Stackpot
reply to post by wmd_2008
I wasn't aware that being an amature phographer qualifies you as a forensic evidence expert. I'm sure you great with f-stops and exposure settings, but you're no expert on space flight, rest assured.
Stackpot
reply to post by wmd_2008
This fellow seems to know his way around photography. I wonder what kind of excuses I'm in for now.
www.youtube.com...
Stackpot
The combined computer power at mission control was roughly that of a 2005 laptop computer, all those monitors were run on a single main frame. The LEM had the computing power of a digital watch. It was an aluminum foil covered fantasy that went nowhere near the moon.
Horse manure.
SayonaraJupiter
Apollo lunar surface images taken with the Hasselblad 70mm cameras should have cross-hairs.
If any such image were found to not have the cross-hairs then that image is a undoubtedly a FRAUD.
Stackpot
reply to post by onebigmonkey
I didn't "waive" illegitimate evidence, I provided a fairly well put together video raising some important questions as to manipulation. Where do you pompous windbags come up with your lines?
On the topic of feasibility of this fairy tail mission
To quote Dave McGowan:
Lynn Radcliffe, who managed the facility at White Sands that was specially constructed to test and develop the LEM’s rocket engines, describes the technology required to land the lunar modules: “This was an unbelievable maneuver when you stop and think about it. You’re sitting on a column of thrust, just hovering there, like a, a helicopter, and then as you let it go, the throttle, a little bit, you lower it just a few feet per second until you make contact. All of this is an amazing set of requirements to put on anyone trying to design a rocket.”
Radcliffe is absolutely right; I did stop to think about it and it is unbelievable. Oh, and to leave barely a mark in the silty moon dust too.
The combined computer power at mission control was roughly that of a 2005 laptop computer, all those monitors were run on a single main frame. The LEM had the computing power of a digital watch. It was an aluminum foil covered fantasy that went nowhere near the moon.
Horse manure.
Saint Exupery
reply to post by waynos
...And remember, folks, that it is more difficult to do in 1 Gravity with air blowing you around than it is in 1/6th G with no air.