Doctored Moon Landing Photos

[ZenGalacticore]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Thanks for the images, they are gorgeous. I wish they were real, but they just do not convince me.

Here is why:

Once again the dividing line that separates the foreground from the background is there. Yes, you need to look a bit more closely this time, but still.

You call that a composite seam? You need glasses apph. Looks like surface features to me. And your composite seam doesn't appear to be lateral or straight. In fact, it seems to curve to and fro with the lunarscape features. You are kidding, right?

You know, this sucks. I'd like the images to be real, but so far all we've had is composites of more than just one image. This really sucks.

Again. You are kidding, right?

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

I manipulated the contrast a bit, so you could more easily see where the second seam is:

They actually had to produce a huge item out of paper mass like that in studio. It's awesome, truly mind-boggling.

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

You call that a composite seam?

No, the moon gnomes did that seam. It is real. :roll:

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Okay, now let's have one image that is not a composite? Can we do that?

 

[origin]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Okay, now let's have one image that is not a composite? Can we do that?

You are either joking or you're completely loony tunes.

th-th-th-th-thats all folks!

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

I manipulated the contrast a bit, so you could more easily see where the second seam is:

They actually had to produce a huge item out of paper mass like that in studio. It's awesome, truly mind-boggling.

All I see is on the far left, below the astronaut's helmet and chest gear, is an unexplainable shadow of your silly arrows! :lol:

 

[rfoshaug]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

If they have real, undoctored, photos, why not release them instead?

They have. They did. One of them is in this thread. You called it fake. What more can NASA do?

 

[2001Kubrick]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Enough of this nonsense. Since none of the hoaxheads here even bothered to respond to any of my bullet points above, here is something else:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF0H79vp5uw

LRO matched with Apollo 17 Panoramas.

Hoaxheads, please explain how it would have been possible for NASA to know which landscapes to "create" during the 1960s? There were no probes at the Apollo 17 site other than the manned LM. How could they have possibly known what the terrain looked like if they didn't go? The LRO images match the Apollo 17 panoramas seemlessly.

Enough of this subjective photo analysis; respond to how this was indeed possible had men not been on the moon to photograph these landscapes?

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Hoaxheads, please explain how it would have been possible for NASA to know which landscapes to "create" during the 1960s? There were no probes at the Apollo 17 site other than the manned LM. How could they have possibly known what the terrain looked like if they didn't go? The LRO images match the Apollo 17 panoramas seemlessly.

I already explained earlier with some qualitative image analysis, the backgrounds may be real, the foregrounds may be re-created.

Enough of this subjective photo analysis; respond to how this was indeed possible had men not been on the moon to photograph these landscapes?

I'd much rather continue with the images, as it is the stuff that we actually have and we can now analyse it better than ever, enlarge interesting detail, enhance contrast to reveal composite edges etc. Now that you too are beginning to have a sharper eye for the composites, you can see that not all of the images even require any enhancement to see where the foreground ends and the background begins:

 

[origin]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

aphh wrote:
Now that you too are beginning to have a sharper eye for the composites, you can see that not all of the images even require any enhancement to see where the foreground ends and the background begins:

Oh fercrinoutloud, do you really think you are convincing anyone of anything, except that you are an expert at deluding yourself?

 

[2001Kubrick]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Enough of this subjective photo analysis; respond to how this was indeed possible had men not been on the moon to photograph these landscapes?

I'd much rather continue with the images, as it is the stuff that we actually have and we can now analyse it better than ever, enlarge interesting detail, enhance contrast to reveal composite edges etc. Now that you too are beginning to have a sharper eye for the composites, you can see that not all of the images even require any enhancement to see where the foreground ends and the background begins:

Well, any points you may have will be moot, because you haven't done anything to refute the large amount of evidence that I bulletpointed. These "debates", if you can even call them that, always lead nowhere.

I've found that conspiracy theorists always focus on aspects that are subjective in nature, such as photo analysis, while ignoring the larger elements which have been proven.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

I already explained earlier with some qualitative image analysis, the backgrounds may be real, the foregrounds may be re-created.

Sorry for missing your explanation but the only way I can conceive that the background is real is that something landed there and took the pics during the Apollo days. Are you saying we put landers there but not men ?

Also do you understand that limited depth of field in the camera is going to blur the background > than some distance given the focus was set to near (1 of 3 settings available on the cameras used) ? Why isn't this the correct explanation for your observed "seam" ?

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Sorry for missing your explanation but the only way I can conceive that the background is real is that something landed there and took the pics during the Apollo days. Are you saying we put landers there but not men ?

I myself do not deny moonlandings, however, the images seem to be fake. I'm sure by now most of you who do not get paid to defend the images will atleast consider the possibility.

If we think about the rationale behind the potential photojob, the most likely one is that the real images from the moon were not great enough, so they fabricated something more glorious. That is my hypothesis anyway.

Also do you understand that limited depth of field in the camera is going to blur the background > than some distance given the focus was set to near (1 of 3 settings available on the cameras used) ? Why isn't this the correct explanation for your observed "seam" ?

The depth of field is rather large in the foreground, so it does not stop being in focus just like that. Otoh, if you look at the image on top of this page, there is an obvious seam, yet the mountains still have detail, so they are not out of focus.

I am a composite artist for broadcast television, and I can say that the seam is hardly ever meant to be obvious, if your intention is to create an illusion of a real photograph or movie scene. The composites made by NASA for the moon images were made using the absolute finest technology and artists of the era, and they did well for a long time.

Now they are expiring fast, and that is why the discussion always turns into name calling about this subject. There are people who are paid to defend those images, because that is all they have left now.

For the common man not getting paid by government agencies it makes no sense to take everything they offer at face value. It is much better to let the reality sink in, that the government is in the business of fraud just aswell as anybody else might be for their own best financial and political interest.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

I myself do not deny moonlandings, however, the images seem to be fake. I'm sure by now most of you who do not gat paid to defend the images will admit that.

You are quite wrong. It is your inability to understand the context of the imges you are looking at that causes the problem

If we think about the rationale behind the photojob, the most likely one is that the real images from the moon were not great enough, so they fabricated something more glorious. That is my hypothesis anyway.

A worthless one, since it's not needed to explain the images.

Also do you understand that limited depth of field in the camera is going to blur the background > than some distance given the focus was set to near (1 of 3 settings available on the cameras used) ? Why isn't this the correct explanation for your observed "seam" ?

The depth of field is rather larger on the foreground, so it does not stop being in focus just like that. Otoh, if you look at the image on top of this page, there is an obvious seam, yet the mountains have detail, so they are not out of focus.

You do realize that once you get above the local ridge, which is close, the mountains are tens or hundreds of kilometers away, so will have different levels of detail, and different lighting, right? Oh, no, apparently you don't realize that. That explains a lot of the problem with your "analysis" of the photos.

I am a composite artist for broadcast television, and I can say that the seam is hardly ever meant to be obvious, if your intention is to create an illusion of a real photograph or movie scene. The composites made by NASA for the moon images were made using the absolute finest technology and artists of the era, and they did well for a long time.

Maybe you are an artist, and that's how you would do it. But you do not understand anything (apparently) about the lunar context of the images. If you check theClavius site listed above, it is very thoroughly explained. But you refuse to make the effort to read that, so your "artist's" hypothesis, has no valuse since you refuse to examine the evidence.

Now they are expiring fast, and that is why the discussion always turns into name calling about this subject. There are people who are paid to defend thos images, because that is all they have left now.

I don't get paid, I just have common sense.

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Oh fercrinoutloud, do you really think you are convincing anyone of anything, except that you are an expert at deluding yourself?

Once you truly grow up, you learn to not take everything at face value, but realize it is in your own best interest to make your own educated observations, research and conclusions and only then choose to believe what you want to believe.

This is what gives you the advantage over those with lesser means to make the right conclusions and who are at the mercy of those who provide the information.

For a government agency who could send people to the moon a photojob is the least difficult thing to do. It takes a handful of people.

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

If you check theClavius site listed above, it is very thoroughly explained.

So? If I ordered a composite job, I'd make sure it would be thoroughly explained.

I don't get paid, I just have common sense.

Where is the sense or professionalism in your replies? You seem to have a vested interest in those photos, either directly or indirectly.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Or they could just publish the un-photoshopped images, and let those who don't understand the pictures have their fun

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

I don't get paid, I just have common sense.

Where is the sense or professionalism in your replies? You seem to have a vested interest in those photos, either directly or indirectly.

No all I have is common sense, and the curiousity to have investigated the images to understand why they look the way they do. To me, that's extremely professional. I'm not an artist, I'm a scientist. My vested interest is science. Yours is imagination and conspiracy, as has been clearly demostrated by your dozens of uninformed posts about the images without having made the effort to understand what you are seeing..

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Like I said, were there just one image without hints of being a composite, I might buy it. But no, we have a huge lump of paper mass in the foreground and then we have hills added where the soundstage ends.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Apph wrote-

I'd much rather continue with the images, as it is the stuff that we actually have and we can now analyse it better than ever, enlarge interesting detail, enhance contrast to reveal composite edges etc. Now that you too are beginning to have a sharper eye for the composites, you can see that not all of the images even require any enhancement to see where the foreground ends and the background begins:

If you're an artist, then you should have learned the basics in Drawing 101 about light and shadow. And in Drawing 102 you would've learned about the play of light and shadow on landscapes. You see the shadow to the left of the lander? Considering the lay of this particular lunarscape, the shadow on the hill and the spur to the right of the hill behind the astronaut is normal. It's not a composite dileneation, it's a natural line of light and shadow.

As far as doing all the research yourself on everything knowable so that you can be sure to only believe what you believe, well, good luck with that! There is way too much to know for one man to do all his research himself. There has to be an element of trust. When you fly on a plane and they tell you it's safe, do you comb the engines with your mechanical knowledge, evaluate the electrical systems of the plane, and then inspect the integrity of the hull and the wings? NO! You trust others to do that!

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

If you're an artist, then you should have learned the basics in Drawing 101 about light and shadow.

I'm both artist and a scientist, and I think in my version the background blends in more nicely. I had to remove the colors as I didn't have the time to do any color-correcting, but it only took me 10 minutes to create a moon photo with a better blending foreground and background:

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Great. So in 10 minutes you were able create an image that looked better "artistically". Of course, it's a distorted version of the actual image, but it looks better to you, since you created it. :roll: :lol:

 

[highdobb]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Wow what a joke. For someone who "believes" in the landings to sit here and claim the photos are fake by presenting their own "better" composites, sure doesn't give me any reason to take anything they say or do seriously. I wont even say their name cause I don't want to waste any more time thinking about how ignorant they are; or debate that fact with them.

One more thing: IF the photos were faked, please tell me then how NASA was able to release these photos in the late 60's/early 70's and know the topology of the surface of the moon so accurately to make a sound stage that resembles a real location on the moon to a T at that scale? If JAXA has confirmed an exact 3D surface of the landing sites, then please tell me- How was NASA able to get their "fake" images so close to the "real" topology in the late 60's? Tell me right now!
Don't you even dare tell me we had topographical data as accurate as JAXA's in the mid 60's when they would have needed it for deciding the landing site, or you immediately confirm your inability to think before typing. I looked it up and we had nothing but telescope photos and "fly by's" to go on. Nowhere near the accuracy of HD JAXA cams... Your ingenious/informed/researched reply please:

 

[origin]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

I'm both artist and a scientist, and I think in my version the background blends in more nicely.

WOW! Did you major in scientist and minor in artist or vice versa?

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

One more thing: IF the photos were faked, please tell me then how NASA was able to release these photos in the late 60's/early 70's and know the topology of the surface of the moon so accurately to make a sound stage that resembles a real location on the moon to a T at that scale?

If I was given the order to make a composite that mimicked the real thing, I would make sure I have all the necessary info to do so. The scale is not a big problem when filming. You make smaller or larger items to create illusion of space of required proportions.

If JAXA has confirmed an exact 3D surface of the landing sites, then please tell me- How was NASA able to get their "fake" images so close to the "real" topology in the late 60's? Tell me right now!

I already did that on the previous page and measured the height of the foreground of both images. The backgrounds are identical, NASA image has higher foreground possibly to cover the content of the original image that is being used as a background plate.

All I'm saying is that if I could do it, then NASA could do it. The problem is in the images, not myself observing and presenting the problems. If you were truthful and honest, you would go after those responsible of presenting the images and made the right questions. But I realize that is not in the interest of some people here.

Discussion seems to be pretty useless, as the intention seems to be only to attack the messengers. This phenomena has been known to occur on messageboards in many countries, as if there was a task force assigned to do damage control, when somebody brings out the hard questions. Good luck with that tactics.