Doctored Moon Landing Photos

[aphh]

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:

It was not intended to "look better" or anything. It was intended to show you that making images that could fool people to parade, play trumpets and drums, wave flags and cheer heroes is child's play now.

It was a little bit harder back in the day, but with a bit of resources many of you would be cheering and celebrating fake images just aswell.

That is all.

 

[highdobb]

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.

The reason you never get an explanation from us and feel attacked when shot down is because the questions you are asking flat out show how uniformed in this field you really are. I know photoshop like the back of my hand and could make some very convincing photos of pretty much anything also, so don't think I don't believe in doctored photos. I don't believe the moon pics are for many, many reasons way beyond anything you would learn in a message response from me. The reason people on a Space.com website are going to be short with you is because of your complete refusal to learn real physics before forming your opinion and stating a claim. You go based on personal experience to assign as the only solution to it. Such as: "Golly, those photos appear to me like a stage and a backdrop because......I think I understand what's going on here, and that's the only thing I can equate this to in my head."
The other reason you wont get answers is because everyone here already knows them so the only way for either side of this argument to rebuttal is with what each other thinks are more unanswerable questions, designed to stump the opponent into a revelation. But we aren't the ones who need it, so you get nowhere every time.
Especially because you believe they landed there, yet think they would want to doctor photos for "some reason" really shows me how gullible you are to the power of self informed persuasion. Just plain learn more about the topic before you will be taken seriously in this field with that kind of claim. Anyone can use words like focal length, depth of field, or aperture and blending, it's entirely another to know how they really work in 2D and 3D space environments. I as well as many other photogs will have you know these photos are too good to be true, in fact so good they're more real than any photoshop of 1969 could have been.

My 3 reasons for not taking your claims seriously:
1: If you already believe they landed, then why don't you believe they would want to take real pictures for real proof? Just cause you think you see something "fishy" NASA must have scrubbed the photography documentation off the mission's honey-do list? Wow..
2: The 'discrepancies' you are bringing up would even be shot down by a real conspiracy theorist who is also a real photog.
3: I am absolutely truthful and honest, that's also why I'm not asking your same questions to those responsible for the images, because I realize what a disrespectful slap in the face it is for asking them in the first place, see we all know it's real....Even you can agree there's too much proof beyond pics to show we've been, so what's your holdup a grudge with the sun's lighting conditions or something?

I really don't think you know how depth is perceived on the moon with no atmosphere even though you claim to understand it, and that's because of the questions you ask. That's why people react the way they do to you.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

You guys need to realize that the photos from the surface of the Moon have been in the public domain since 1969 to 1972 or so. Correct me if I'm wrong but 1972 was at least 20 or 25 years before Photoshop.

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

see we all know it's real....

You don't know that.

Unless you personally got the films from the astronauts when they landed and developed the images, you don't know what happened at all. Thus you are making a claim that you can not back up no matter what, whereas I am not making claims that I could not back with atleast some analysis that can be made by studying images.

In this sense your claim is outrageous, whereas mine is reasonable.

I really don't think you know how depth is perceived on the moon with no atmosphere even though you claim to understand it, and that's because of the questions you ask.

I'm almost certain I have more physics, chemistry and image engineering courses from the University under my belt than most people in this thread.

The reason the backgrounds do not quite match the foreground is that A) the back projection they used does not reproduce the whole contrast range and produces a slight texture for the image on the backplate. B) to make the seam between the foreground and background as minimal as possible, they needed to develop a new image for the backplate, make a test shoot and if the lightness didn't match, develop once again. It was tedious and not perfect mechanism, unlike photoshop today.

That's why people react the way they do to you.

I counted 4 people, of which atleast one is a very new screenname for this forum. Seems like a pretty standard task force of Internet thugs doing what they can for this very subject, as everywhere where these discrepancies in the images show up as subject.

 

[origin]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Unless you personally got the films from the astronauts when they landed and developed the images, you don't know what happened at all. Thus you are making a claim that you can not back up no matter what, whereas I am not making claims that I could not back with atleast some analysis that can be made by studying images.

In this sense your claim is outrageous, whereas mine is reasonable.

You really crack me up, the funniest part is you seem to be totally serious - absolutely amazing!

I'm almost certain I have more physics, chemistry and image engineering courses from the University under my belt than most people in this thread.

Proof that education and the ability to reason do not necessarily correlate!

Seems like a pretty standard task force of Internet thugs

Dats right, me an my homies are gonna do a couple lines a code then head down to the hood an check out da orinoids, suka.

 

[rfoshaug]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Look at this image of the Swiss alps:

Do you think this image is clearly fake and doctored since there is no "smooth" transition from the trees and grass nearby and the lake and mountains farther away?

Every lake has a beginning. Why can't we see the beginning of this lake? Is the image fake?

:lol:

 

[highdobb]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

You guys need to realize that the photos from the surface of the Moon have been in the public domain since 1969 to 1972 or so. Correct me if I'm wrong but 1972 was at least 20 or 25 years before Photoshop.

Lol!! Oh I think everyone here knows that, some just might have a problem accepting that...

 

[highdobb]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

see we all know it's real....

You don't know that.

Unless you personally got the films from the astronauts when they landed and developed the images, you don't know what happened at all. Thus you are making a claim that you can not back up no matter what, whereas I am not making claims that I could not back with atleast some analysis that can be made by studying images.

In this sense your claim is outrageous, whereas mine is reasonable.

I really don't think you know how depth is perceived on the moon with no atmosphere even though you claim to understand it, and that's because of the questions you ask.

I'm almost certain I have more physics, chemistry and image engineering courses from the University under my belt than most people in this thread.

The reason the backgrounds do not quite match the foreground is that A) the back projection they used does not reproduce the whole contrast range and produces a slight texture for the image on the backplate. B) to make the seam between the foreground and background as minimal as possible, they needed to develop a new image for the backplate, make a test shoot and if the lightness didn't match, develop once again. It was tedious and not perfect mechanism, unlike photoshop today.

That's why people react the way they do to you.

I counted 4 people, of which atleast one is a very new screenname for this forum. Seems like a pretty standard task force of Internet thugs doing what they can for this very subject, as everywhere where these discrepancies in the images show up as subject.

You're right, I'm wrong. I have no idea what I'm talking about, thank you sooo much for opening my eyes to the possibility that every photo I see released from NASA should be so scrutinized we deserve our money back. Thanks for being there to help out a fellow human being in our belief that there's more to the universe than earth. I'm glad you were able to use your superior knowledge to prove these were faked and I'm sorry for being a "believer" in human ability.
See you never, especially your unborn generations on Mars. Peace!

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Proof that education and the ability to reason do not necessarily correlate!

Nobody here can produce any proof that the images are real and not fake images from the surface of the moon. I can not prove that they are fake images, but with my abilities I can provide clues for a possible photojob.

Any grown up with some real education would atleast consider the possibility and not dismiss it off hand. They had the resources, they had the motive and they could do it, so it is possible they did it.

If you can prove these images are real, I will gladly accept it.

 

[BoJangles2]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Nobody here can produce any proof that the images are real and not fake images from the surface of the moon. I can not prove that they are fake images, but with my abilities I can provide clues for a possible photojob

That has got to be the dumbest argument ever in this history of dumb arguments.

Prove to me your real and not a bot? I dare ya.

I can’t prove you’re a bot, but with my spidey senses I can provide clues for a possible Eliza type program behind that naïve textual exterior. You surely don’t sound smart enough to be a human. Hrmm you must be a bot.

Any grown up with some real education would atleast consider the possibility and not dismiss it off hand.

I'm a grown up with a real education. Give me a little a second while I weigh up the evidence and consider if the moon landings where fake, I won’t dismiss It straight away… Ahh there we go, with about 2 seconds of ration and critical thought, I’ve discovered they weren’t fake. And thats how long its should take knowing both sides of hte sotry

Now what’s the name for someone who denies something in the face of overwhelming evidence… They are village idiots, clowns, people with low IQs, they are stubborn, they have ulterior motives, they are trawling for a reaction, they need attention, they have a disorder which prevents them from thinking clearly, or they smoke to much weed. Take your pick really.

There must be like 20 printed pages worth of reasoning and evidence to show you the moon landings can’t be faked
Personally if I was an MOD id ban people just for bringing the average IQ of this place down.

---

Man these threads get to me, i really should steer clear of threads like this, before I get banned

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

I'm a grown up with a real education.

I think I made myself very clear,

when I myself produced a image from the moon on the last page. Without better knowledge you would be defending that image just aswell, like a fool.

Only a fool trumpets something loudly he can not verify first hand. A clever person considers the alternative possibilities, like the very possible scenario of those images being totally composed in a studio.

You can not prove those images are real. You are fool, if you claim otherwise.

Here, defend this:

That is NOT a composite I made. That is a real image from the moon. Tons of evidence point to that image being totally real. You smoke too much weed if you claim otherwise. How dare you question the validity of that real image from the moon

 

[origin]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Only a fool trumpets something loudly he can not verify first hand. A clever person considers the alternative possibilities, like the very possible scenario of those images being totally composed in a studio.

That is just plain stupid.

So Antarctica doesn't really exist? The ocean trenches might have cities in them? The center of the earth might be hollow?
All you need is the preponderance of evidence to accept something. The real fool is one who ignores untold volumes of evidence and concentrates on one bit of evidence that cannot be 100% verified. This is the classic ploy of the conspiracy theorist. It goes beyond stupidity to the realm of psychosis.

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

People who want to force their version of the truth on other people, despite the obvious technical problems with it, are nothing more than religious fanatics. Dangerous pro-government fascists a.k.a communists.

Pro-citizen and pro-freedom individual considers all possibilities as per evidence provided, and is not trying to be a one-truth-fits-all fascist.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Or "my truth fits all" ignorance

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Or "my truth fits all" ignorance

I produced a image in less than ten minutes that without better knowledge you would have defended vigorously with a thug attitude. :lol:

Seriously people, what is wrong with you? Especially what makes you believe that you are in some way different from the "hoaxheads".

You are the real dangerous hoaxheads, as you even claim scientific authority. You have no proof whatsoever to back your claim that the images are real images from the moon, yet you trumpet your truth as the one and only truth.

Again, the images may be real images from the moon. However, glitches in EVERY image suggest otherwise. A real scientist would start asking questions. It is called research.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

"Seriously people, what is wrong with you?"

I believe you should look in the introspective mirror

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

"Seriously people, what is wrong with you?"

I believe you should look in the introspective mirror

Let's see, was I the one who

- made claims that I could not back
- name called others who didn't agree with my opinion
- called others who didn't agree with my opinion retards
- suggested banning those who dared to question my valid hypothesis and concern with the images

No, not really.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Let's see, was I the one who

- made claims that I could not back

Yes. In fact you have repeatedly done so.

- name called others who didn't agree with my opinion

Yes, from what I recall, but I could be wrong. This is your assertion, not mine, so provide some support for it.

- called others who didn't agree with my opinion retards

I don't know, so would have to go back and read through the thread. Again, provide some support for this assertion. hat way I won't have to reread all the posts in this silly thread.

- suggested banning those who dared to question my valid hypothesis and concern with the images

That's a serious accusation. Please substantite it immediately, or withdraw the statement.

MW

 

[origin]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Dangerous pro-government fascists a.k.a communists.

Now that is pretty damn funny; a fascist communist! Sounds like something George Carlin would come up with, like jumbo shrimp.

Not the type of comment I would expect an artist / scientist to utter. :lol: :lol:

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Pretty humerous what people will say when they are just spouting cool sounding words without having the slightest clue what they actually mean

 

[rfoshaug]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Well, aaph,

On the previous page in this thread I showed you an image of the Swiss alps. There is no continuity between foreground and background.

Do you think it's fake?

And if not, why would the lunar images you present be fake?

?

 

[highdobb]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

aaph:
Yes, anyone can argue for or against anything, that's true. The simple fact is that there is waaay more proof (yes besides photos) that humans did land there then there is valid arguments in your so called "fixed" images to "prove" it didn't happen. Even raising questions like "contrast in background not matching foreground" shows how literal you take physics without considering other things (yes like you accuse us of ignoring things in your viewpoints, you do the same with scientific fact.)
For example, I could tell you what I think the problem is in your so called "backdrop" complex, just my hypothesis if you care...
Since the moon has no atmosphere you claim the contrast should remain the same consistently through whatever distance. I think, yes I said think, some of the problem comes from diffusion and scattering...
Print out a piece of paper with a big black box in the center and one piece of paper with a smaller checkerboard pattern. Place them at the same distance near you and their contrast from the eye appears the same or similar. Now place the big printed box near and the checker print waaay out further. What happens to the checker print? It becomes "Grey" while the big box in front is still solid black. This effect would also happen in a no air environment.

So then, why are the shadows in the foreground of a moon pic more distinguishable to me? Because they are closer to the camera, the rocks and their highlight from the sun, with their dark shadows are easily seen. Medium to small objects (rocks) way in the distance create a blanket of high contrast at a small scale (think of it like pixels, each other one black and white.) Huge crater walls or mountains blanketed by "grey" also receive an awful lot of bounce light from light reflecting off huge open craters and plains in direct sunlight. Please tell me you know how light reflects off white/light surfaces.... At the foreground level the bounce light is not as noticeable because of the fact the rocks shadows have higher contrast when closer to you. You don't need air (or a crappy back-plate NASA could have afforded to do "right" anyway) to aid in lowering contrast. What do you think television companies have been researching for decades to perfect?

Note the contrast example below where there is no hill creating a "line" between foreground and background:

-At the bottom of the image everything can be seen perfectly, as you look up towards the LEM it looses contrast, simple as that.
Looking on to the left I can't see anymore debris on the ground, large or otherwise...Also because of the suns angle, but do you get any of this at all? Seems you don't off the bat...
-Another angle below: Ps. That lander in the foreground (Surveyor 3) landed in 1967, over 2 years before the mission (Apollo 12) taking the photos landed. Instruments were returned from it for inspection of wear. More proof NASA has, unless of course that too was doctored for "some reason"...

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Yes. In fact you have repeatedly done so.

Can we have an example of a claim that I made that I can not back, or is this just your standard way of discussion?

That's a serious accusation. Please substantite it immediately, or withdraw the statement.

From BoJangles reply right above: "Personally if I was an MOD id ban people just for bringing the average IQ of this place down."

You don't even bother to read the messages before replying, but simply continue with thug attitude. I can easily see where the course of this dicussion is meant to be headed, but I am not taking that route, thank you very much.

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

aaph:
Yes, anyone can argue for or against anything, that's true.

First off, learn paragraphs. I can't read long rants without paragraphs.

Since the moon has no atmosphere you claim the contrast should remain the same consistently through whatever distance.

In the upper picture you posted you can see that even the grey parts on the left loose contrast totally. That is artificial as the level of contrast at that same grey level is high on the right side of the image. The white parts in the astronaut suit "wash" or are lost due overexposure, but the grey parts on the ground should have atleast some detail throughout the picture.

There is no detail at all on the left grey parts of the image. Conclusion: well, I don't think I need to produce one.

That lander and antenna on the hill could be 1/5th scale models, so if the actual distance was 100 meters, 20 meters would do equally well when filming. We have only 2 dimensions in images, and the 3rd one can be very easily manipulatad with size and angles.

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Well, aaph,

On the previous page in this thread I showed you an image of the Swiss alps. There is no continuity between foreground and background.

Do you think it's fake?

And if not, why would the lunar images you present be fake?

?

Let us allow Occam's Razor settle this debate,

which one is the more likely scenario, I travel to Switzerland for a holiday to snap a nice image of alpine scenery or alternatively spend a lot of time and effort to artificially create something similar on 3D and various picture manipulation software.

I think we both agree the first scenario is the more likely one. When I travel to Switzerland, I'll just snap the image.

What about the images from the moon? Which one now is the more likely scenario;

I assign 5 - 10 skilled people to create moon sceneries and images in a studio or alternatively assign thousands of people and vast sums of money to build rockets and whatnot to risk lives and send people to the moon to take those images?

Pick the one you feel like is the more likely scenario.