Doctored Moon Landing Photos

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

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

Let me guess, to you fascists are the bad guys and communists the good ones? I don't think so.

By the way, do you consume a lot of mainstream media? Because you sound like you do. You should study and do research, like I do, and spend less time on Borat and whatnot.

Borat is not even real, but fabricated reality. No wonder the youth today accept anything as real.

 

[kelvinzero]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

The thing I notice about moon hoaxers is that their world does not seem to have as many people in it as our world, or people form into a limited series of archetypes that can act with amazing coordination, as if they are the same person.

For example, suppose these moon photos were hoaxes, and these hoaxes were clear to someone with average knowledge of photography as implied here. Then don't you need a huge conspiracy of just about every truely skilled photographer who has ever looked at a moon photo?

The number of genuinely skilled people who has pored over these photos must be in the hundreds of thousands. Even if most could miss evidence obvious to a lay person initially, wouldnt it become clear after one of their friends who they took seriously asked them to look again at a suspicious detail? Wouldnt the truth spread like a virus and within weeks, a vast majority of everybody skilled with photography be clamoring that they were fakes?

The second reason I dont think moon hoaxers really understand a world filled with billions of people is the way they concentrate on the photos. As if we went to the moon and the only evidence we have is some Polaroids, and the only people who had to be in on it were some managers, the astronauts and some CIA camera crew.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

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.

Well, fortunately for you, BoJangles isn't a mod, and we don't have to listen to him

And if I have a "thug attitude" for questioning your pseudscientific analysis, so be it. You should see me on a bad day

 

[Smersh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

The thing I notice about moon hoaxers is that their world does not seem to have as many people in it as our world, or people form into a limited series of archetypes that can act with amazing coordination, as if they are the same person ...

Kelvin I agree with those comments about moon hoaxers, (including the rest of your post) but from what I've been reading here over the last few pages, I don't think Aphh is a moon hoaxer, but is just questioning the validity of some of the photographs. In other words, he's saying that we did go to to the moon, but for whatever reason (quality, etc) NASA decided to either fake some of the photos or enhance them to look more impressive. (Although, as you pointed out, photo analysis experts would surely have noticed by now if that were the case.)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is that what you are saying, Aphh?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

That's what I understand as well Smersh. If I'd caught it earlier, I would have split it into it's own thread, but it would take hours of work now, and I'm just not gonna spend the time.

 

[origin]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

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

Let me guess, to you fascists are the bad guys and communists the good ones? I don't think so.

No, you knuckle head; fascist are typically rabid anti-communists. So your statement of "fascist aka communists" was a demonstration of your lack of knowledge.

By the way, do you consume a lot of mainstream media?

No

Because you sound like you do. You should study and do research, like I do,

God you are really a hoot! :lol: :lol:

Borat is not even real, but fabricated reality. No wonder the youth today accept anything as real.

I am not sure why you are talking about borat, I am impressed that you figured out that it is just a movie though!

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is that what you are saying, Aphh?

That is correct.

However, the disinfo machine is at full throttle here, so they do not make any distinction. For them there are only "hoaxheads" or "moonbats". This is standard disinformation tactics, smear everybody regardless and label under the loony bin. Some of these people do this thing for a living.

If I wanted to defend some outrageous claim almost entirely fabricated by a vast disinformation campaign, I would probably act similarly. However, I am not the one making incredible claims here that nobody could back in any way.

Yes, it is reasonable to assume, that atleast the backgrounds in some of the images really are from the moon. However, it would have been still easier to produce a few truly realistic moon sceneries from the data they had acquired, that would pass examination later on, than to actually send people to the moon to take those images.

So there is no way to say for certain, it is very likely that those backgrounds have been taken from the surface of the moon, but it is equally reasonable to assume that not everything is right with these images.

(Although, as you pointed out, photo analysis experts would surely have noticed by now if that were the case.)

I am a photo analysis expert, and I am telling this now. And you can see the response here, so do you really think many photo experts are willing to take this train voluntarily?

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

No, you knuckle head; fascist are typically rabid anti-communists. So your statement of "fascist aka communists" was a demonstration of your lack of knowledge.

If you're the expert here on fascists and communists, lets hear the major differences between those two ideologies, other than they don't like each other very much.

I am not sure why you are talking about borat, I am impressed that you figured out that it is just a movie though!

You mentioned a name that most likely is some media figure, so I simply wanted to talk to you using language that you would understand. Borat is a media figure just like the name you gave me, so I am more than certain that using a media figure Borat as my reference you would get the point. Which turned out to be the case.

One needs to use the language that people understand. You probably know all recent significant media productions inside out. You seem like the kind of person, hungry for media in a big way and getting all the critical information from media figures like George Carlin and Borat.

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

This said, it doesn’t really change the facts that your using extremely simplistic and unscientific methods as evidence for for your proof the moon landings were faked, not to mention being naive to all the other evidence to the contrary.

Images seem faked, not moonlandings itself. However, if there is a reason they faked images, proving that the images are not true would be the first step in opening this whole can of worms.

You do know that you can run certain statistical analysis on image data to ascertain whether they have been doctored don’t you?

No, no I didn't know that. So lets say I use a projector to project a image on the wall, then take a picture of that image on the wall, you say there is a software or method to tell that the resulting image is actually an image taken of a image projected on the wall? Is that what you are saying?

Because that image would be real, the content would be doctored. As far as I know, there is no software or method for false content. Image of Borat is real image, even if the media figure is not.

If these images were indeed doctored, you would know about it from reputable researchers.

Yes, I'm quite sure "reputabe researchers", whose livelihood depend on staying in business, would gladly take the punishment like what we witnessed in this thread coming from "reputable scientists", media experts and whatnot.

 

[highdobb]

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.

Obviously you don't realize how much you're overlooking in your own statements. Was Tienanmen Square M. fake also? You weren't there so must have been. Was the genocide in Rwanda faked too? You weren't there so must have been. Hiroshima's atom bomb must be on the fake list too then?

The only thing that would convince you it's real is it happening to a lot of people. Well over 100,000 people really were involved in landing on the moon. You have no trust in Scientists or Astronauts, and you're completely disregarding real photos based on you believing you're smarter than the rest of the planet for seeing how obviously questionable they are. You overlook the obvious forms of physical proof beyond a picture to go out of your way to raise questions about something so mundane. All in hopes of "opening up a can of worms"? That directly translates to-"proving all other evidence was faked also 'somehow'."

If you want an argument worth listening to, you need to prove all the rocks that came back were fake samples, or all the instruments from probes returned by man are fake. Not tell me you "think" you see something fishy in your incomprehensible form of dissecting a photo. You are obviously not a pro photographer! There's no way you can believe we landed but faked the photos, you really must think it didn't happen. There would be a crap load of people who would laugh in your face at how idiotic you sound, oh wait...

 

[origin]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

You mentioned a name that most likely is some media figure, so I simply wanted to talk to you using language that you would understand. Borat is a media figure just like the name you gave me, so I am more than certain that using a media figure Borat as my reference you would get the point. Which turned out to be the case.

One needs to use the language that people understand. You probably know all recent significant media productions inside out. You seem like the kind of person, hungry for media in a big way and getting all the critical information from media figures like George Carlin and Borat.

George Carlin was a comedian, one of his bits was matching words that did not fit together like Jumbo shrimp, military intelligence, or facist communists.

Looks like as usual, you are way off the mark...

 

[aphh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

If you want an argument worth listening to, you need to prove all the rocks that came back were fake samples,

I have been talking about fake images, not fake rocks.

That you insist on refusing to acknowledge that tells volumes about the mission you are on. A false mission, that may fool somebody. But for somebody who has actually studied this Internet phenomena of attacking furiously those questioning the validity of Apollo mission or some other large government backed claims, the purpose of your postings is obvious.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Sigh...I think the problem is that you posted in this thread instead of starting a new one about fake photos. I could be wrong, maybe it was my fault. In any case, the board is having problems right now, so I won't attempt to split the topic at this time. Once it is behaving, I will create a new thread titled Fake Moon Photos, and separate that part of the discussion. Hopefully that will help avoid confusion. I'll post a short note in the thread when I start that process, since it will probably take me an hour or two to ensure all posts wind up in the proper threads.

Until then, be clear that aphh is not saying the moon landings were a hoax, he is suggesting the photos from such missions have been doctored.

Moderator Meteor Wayne

 

[highdobb]

I think aphh is claiming a partial hoax actually. From everything I've heard aphh is convinced they "re-shot" miniatures on Earth for some reason, instead of bringing a camera with them on a mission that really took place. That to me sounds like a partial hoax, which is what I don't understand and never will. Why fake part of it? Especially the photo taking part!!!

If aphh want's me to listen, then aphh needs proof WHY they split up the real information with the fake, and why they picked only the photos to fake. Calling out "backdrop lines" in a pic doesn't do it for me, and grand claims of how much money they had and could do it for won't convince me either. If they had soo much money they could afford to pay off all these people and fake it for this long, then we could have actually done it for real! :lol:

 

[MeteorWayne]

MOD HAT ON**
Hi Folks. Over the last two weeks or so, the discussion in the moon hoax topic has focused on allegations of doctored moon landing photos. The originator, aphh, does not dispute that the landing has occurred. So it is a different topic. I have tried to split the topic at the appropriate point, not sure if that was sucessful yet. In any case, it will take a little while to ensure tht moon hoax posts are in the correct thread, and the doctored photo posts are in the correct one as well. Please bear with me duing the next hour or 3 while I clean up the mess.

Meteor Wayne

 

[MeteorWayne]

OK, folks, my effort to split the threads is complete. Is it perfect? Of course not, since many posts could have gone in either one. I have spent over 2 hours of my own time, doing the best I could.

If you feel one of your posts is in the wrong thread, please feel free to PM me and I will consider moving the specific post.

Otherwise... AND THIS IS OFFICIAL: Please stick to the subject of each topic. One for the moon photo manipulation, and the other for the entire Moon Landing Hoax Universe. Trust me, after all the effort I've put in, if you post in the wrong thread, I will not be amused.

Meteor Wayne

 

[JonClarke]

So it takes 5 pages top show that aphh does not understand 1) how distance, topography,. and illumination intreract on the Moon, 2) is not prepared to admit they was wrong, and 3) fails to understand that the burden of evidence rests on him, not on Apollo?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Apparenty it does At least to aphh

 

[aphh]

So it takes 5 pages top show that aphh does not understand 1) how distance, topography,. and illumination intreract on the Moon, 2) is not prepared to admit they was wrong, and 3) fails to understand that the burden of evidence rests on him, not on Apollo?

Actually I have not made one claim I could not back with image data.

If you look at the front page and the comparison of the recent 3D data and the image that is being presented as real. The differences in the height of the foreground is real, easily visible and has been quantified in the comparison too. I have presented my case with analysis and made questions about it.

The answers are the usual stuff of pretty much nothing but thug attitude and use of force to make the questions go away.

There may be some physical phenomenon that makes the background lose contrast in that picture on the airless Moon. Also, they may be on a cliff, which would explain partially the sharp edge between the foreground and the background (but not the difference in the contrast).

However, having a separate image as the background with reduced contrast would provide exactly the same result, so there is no way to say for certain. All anybody could do is to keep insisting on that image being true, however that is still not a gurantee of the validity of that image.

It could be real or it could be a composite and there is nothing you could do about it. Atleast admit that.

 

[JonClarke]

So it takes 5 pages top show that aphh does not understand 1) how distance, topography,. and illumination intreract on the Moon, 2) is not prepared to admit they was wrong, and 3) fails to understand that the burden of evidence rests on him, not on Apollo?

Actually I have not made one claim I could not back with image data.

No you have not provided any back up. You have made assertions that ignore the basica reality of the lunar surface.

If you look at the front page and the comparison of the recent 3D data and the image that is being presented as real. The differences in the height of the foreground is real, easily visible and has been quantified in the comparison too. I have presented my case with analysis and made questions about it.

You are ignoring the effect of distance and variations in slope. Despite the fact that this is clearly visible in the images. This alone distroys your case.

The answers are the usual stuff of pretty much nothing but thug attitude and use of force to make the questions go away.

So asking for evidence and pointing out flaws in your reasoning is a "thug attitude"? What force has been used against you? This is paranoia speaking

The veracity of the historial; record of Apollo is well established. You are the one making a claim against this, the onus of proof is on you.

There may be some physical phenomenon that makes the background lose contrast in that picture on the airless Moon. Also, they may be on a cliff, which would explain partially the sharp edge between the foreground and the background (but not the difference in the contrast).

There is nothing "may" about it. Small shadows get lost in the oveerall brighter background. You see it on the Moon, on Mars, and on Earth.

You don't need a cliff, you just need a dip to cause the sharp edge in the foreground.

Five pages and you still have not grasped these simple facts.

However, having a separate image as the background with reduced contrast would provide exactly the same result, so there is no way to say for certain.

Not exactly the same. However an image is faked it leaves clues that tell it apart from the real thing. Are you an expert in photographic analysis? if so, what is your training, your experience?

Plus there is the context. You do realise that this is not a random image? That it exists in a numbered sequence of images? These together show the whole area from many angles. Are you saying they are all fake?

You also realise that you are working of a low resolution scan? Have you looked at the original positives, or at least full resolution scans?

All anybody could do is to keep insisting on that image being true, however that is still not a gurantee of the validity of that image.

You are the one you needs to show that it is unreal.

It could be real or it could be a composite and there is nothing you could do about it. Atleast admit that.

Nothing to admit. The weight of the evidence to date is that the image is real. Occam's razor says its real. All we have to the contrary is your "could be". An appeal to your personal incredulity. You will have to do better than that.

 

[aphh]

You are ignoring the effect of distance and variations in slope. Despite the fact that this is clearly visible in the images. This alone distroys your case.

Japanese are sharp guys. They made the angle and focal length as exact match as possible. The images just don't match for the reason I already explained on the first page.

There is nothing "may" about it. Small shadows get lost in the oveerall brighter background. You see it on the Moon, on Mars, and on Earth.

We are on the Moon here. Totally different from the Earth and Mars. Nothing to account for the loss of contrast in the background, except the background image going through a 40 year old composite mechanism and losing contrast in the process.

Five pages and you still have not grasped these simple facts.

Keep telling that to somebody who is interested. I'm not.

Not exactly the same. However an image is faked it leaves clues that tell it apart from the real thing. Are you an expert in photographic analysis? if so, what is your training, your experience?

Yes, I am an expert in photography and composites, made a decent living for 10 years doing composites and drive a BMW earned by doing image composites. You can make a real image of a fake content and nobody could say the image is fake, because the image is real even if the content is not. You can take a photo of Borat and the image would be 100% real image, even if there is no Kazakstani reporter like that that we know of.

Plus there is the context. You do realise that this is not a random image? That it exists in a numbered sequence of images? These together show the whole area from many angles. Are you saying they are all fake?

They had enough data to produce fully realistic sets and backgrounds and it would still have been easier to do than to send men to the moon to take those pictures.

Occam's razor says its real. All we have to the contrary is your "could be". An appeal to your personal incredulity. You will have to do better than that.

Occam's razor actually says it would have been easier to produce those images in a studio than send men to the moon to snap them. You have provided no proof of the validity of the images, you haven't got a slightest piece of evidence of how those images were taken, developed and manipulated. You don't know anything, yet present yourself as if you were there. You were not there, you don't know. That much is certain for sure.

 

[esokujo]

Given that you accept the evidence supporting the fact that men have been to the moon, wouldn't Occam's Razor then suggest that the images would have been more easily produced on the lunar surface? One must also be careful about the standards with which you are willing to accept evidence, because one must also apply those standards to oneself. Apph, you stated that "you were not there, you don't know." Were you present at the time the images were produced (regardless of where or how they were produced)? If not, you cannot claim that you are right, neither can you claim anyone else is wrong, especially when, thus far, the evidence seems to oppose you. I have yet to see a good reason why anyone involved in lunar landings would have faked nothing other than a set of photos. To say the ones they took on the surface weren't good enough is not sufficient reason.

 

[origin]

aphh is a classic case of a conspiracy theorist, in other words nothing will convince him that he is wrong. It is a waste of breath to attempt to reason with him.

He has settled on the thought that the photos could be doctored so that is it there is no changing his mind. Why? Here is the problem.

Is it possible to make those photographs using photo editing techniques? Yes.

Since it is possible to make those photos and he wants it to be true (for what ever unfathomable reason) there is no other alternative in his mind.

If you give all the reasons that it is obviously not the case; then you must be part of the conspiracy.


Here is a list of a conspiracy theorists traits from Wikipedia: conspiracy theory guide

1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.

5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.

6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.

Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

7. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.

8. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.

9. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.

10. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.

11. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'

 

[aphh]

aphh is a classic case of a conspiracy theorist,

Smear tactics and attacks must end.

Your posting simply does not belong in this thread, hence I am asking moderators to remove it and give you a stern warning about the code of conduct here.

Unless somebody has concrete evidence to prove that these images are real, there is no point in trying to pretend to know what happened. None of you were there when the images were produced, so none of you have the authority in this issue. Claiming otherwise is something a clever person would not do, but somebody who has let himself become brainwashed and conditioned would.

Your theory of the origin óf these photos is in no way better than mine, in fact my theory is the more plausible one when considering all possibilities.

 

[aphh]

Given that you accept the evidence supporting the fact that men have been to the moon, wouldn't Occam's Razor then suggest that the images would have been more easily produced on the lunar surface?

Not necessarily. It must be pretty difficult to take legendary photos when you can barely focus and the camera is tied to your chest. Go ahead and try that to see what kind of results you might be able to produce with that setup. Let's also not forget that the whole issue is with the images themselves. If they looked like real photos, I'd never would have taken the interest in them.

Apph, you stated that "you were not there, you don't know." Were you present at the time the images were produced (regardless of where or how they were produced)? If not, you cannot claim that you are right, neither can you claim anyone else is wrong, especially when, thus far, the evidence seems to oppose you.

What evidence? Where is this evidence that these images are real? My point was not to try to prove that these images are fake, so I am not even claiming that they are fake. I am claiming that they might be fake. There is a difference, which none of you seem to be able to comprehend. You are the only ones here making claims none of you could back.

It's astounding. Grown up people argue for something and vigorously defend something they have no better knowledge whatsoever or any idea of how something originated. You are like religious nuts, some of you have vested interests, like priests. Others are followers of something that resembles a religious movement, a church even.

I have yet to see a good reason why anyone involved in lunar landings would have faked nothing other than a set of photos. To say the ones they took on the surface weren't good enough is not sufficient reason.

All photos these days are doctored because "they weren't good enough", some are doctored more and some less, but each image you see has been manipulated in some way to enhance the image. It is safe to assume things weren't that much different 40 years ago, so please stop promoting and endorsing something that you can not verify, atleast identify your claims as theology.