Doctored Moon Landing Photos

[esokujo]

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.

Firstly, I have little understanding of anything in regards to photography and its related fields. However, as you point out, none of us were there when the images were produced, and I'm going to assume that you weren't either, so no one here has authority on the issue. You have no more right to claim what you state is true than anyone has to claim what you state is not true. From what I've read, no one is claiming that the images could have been fabricated. Anyone with a decent background in photo-editing software could produce an image that could look real, and anyone who is skilled in special effects/staging could produce something that looks very real. I think the real problem everyone is having with this is that, given that we have been to the moon (drawn from numerous other evidences), why would anyone fake the pictures?

Your last statement is what is causing everyone to blow you off. You are relegating rebuttals to nothing more than smear tactics while holding your own opinion of the situation as the only possible theory. As has been said, decades of pouring over these photos has not resulted in scientific circles denying the reliability of what is photographed. Given that, many people are inclined to belief the scientific circles over an individual, especially when the individual in question is treating debate on the issue as you have been in this topic. Sound research does not dismiss any possibility.

When one presents something contrary to what is commonly understood, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You've claimed that the photos are real photos of rigged settings. You've also supplied evidence for your claim. Good. Now, you may be right...but you may also be wrong. You must at least acknowledge that. I'll give you that much, that you might in fact you may be right, however, I do not believe that to be the case.

 

[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?

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.

You bounce back and forth between the idea that the images are fake, or the images are real and setting is fake...which is it? Also, I believe the Mythbusters have tackled this before, showing that a single point of light can produce that shadowing observed in the photos.

I understand completely the difference between saying something is fake and claiming something might be fake. People generally have problems with claims being pushed down their throats as truth.

 

[aphh]

why would anyone fake the pictures?

Wars have started because of fake images and events.

Your last statement is what is causing everyone to blow you off.

There is no reason to "blow me off" or behave aggressively or any other inappropriate way. None here has admitted that they do not have first hand experience about what happened, yet continue to pretend to have the authority in this matter. It's time to admit that before any resolution can be even considered.

You are relegating rebuttals to nothing more than smear tactics while holding your own opinion of the situation as the only possible theory.

That is simply not true. I refuse to be called a conspiracy theorist for pointing out the obvious, which is the fact that there may be more explanations to the images than just one. That something is "official" just makes it the official explanation, which is not necessarily the same thing as what actually happened. Any scientist or otherwise clever individual should know that.

"Officials" are people too, they have financial and ideological constraints. People also tend to lie a lot, and officials are people. Admit that, and you too will be better off in the long run.

As has been said, decades of pouring over these photos has not resulted in scientific circles denying the reliability of what is photographed.

If there was a photojob, it was not meant to be obvious. They didn't think it would be very easy to truly study the images after a few decades.

When one presents something contrary to what is commonly understood, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.

Really? I have not seen anybody pressing religious people with demands to prove that God or heaven or prophets exist.

You've claimed that the photos are real photos of rigged settings.

You are making a claim, that is not true. I have made a claim that there may be more explanations to the images than the one that is being promoted and formulated a hypothesis to explain the discrepancies in the images. That is the only real claim I have made in this thread and that claim is made after studying the evidence that we have, the images. Not before, but after studying them.

 

[damskov]

Aphh, I find it fascinating that you keep claiming these images were doctored while posting tiny images and no explanations on exactly how and why the doctoring was done. All you're saying goes along the lines of "contrast looks wrong" - and that no one can claim these images are real.

And despite claiming to be a specialist at image composition, at no point have you shown any ability to analyze the photos for positive evidence of having been taken on a planetary surface. Even an amateur like me can google Apollo 11 high res images and with a tiny bit of Photoshop knowledge it takes only a few minutes to produce stereo anaglyphs showing clear stereoscopic depth of field.

Now, please take a look at these anaglyphs http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11-Anaglyphs.html and explain exactly how they doctored the parallax.

Or take a look at the high res scans located here http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html .. And that's just Apollo 11.

If I were so inclined I'm pretty sure that a couple of days of correlating photos from different angles of terrain features relative to the lander would pretty definitively show that the "studio" in which the images were "doctored" would have to be several square miles in size, with a complete terrain and a billion million lumen light source capable of lighting it all evenly.

Shall we try Occams Razor once again?

 

[origin]

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.

I disagree. This most certainly does apply. There are no smear tactics and I did not violate any forum rules, that I know of anyway. I made a statement that you were a classic conspiracy theorist and then backed up that statement with one of the common definition or traits of a conspiracy theorists. If I was not specific enough and you would like, I can site specific examples from this thread where your statements conform with these traits.

 

[origin]

aphh wrote:
Wars have started because of fake images and events.

Just out of curiosity, what war was started due to a fake image?

 

[aphh]

I disagree. This most certainly does apply. There are no smear tactics and I did not violate any forum rules, that I know of anyway. I made a statement that you were a classic conspiracy theorist and then backed up that statement with one of the common definition or traits of a conspiracy theorists. If I was not specific enough and you would like, I can site specific examples from this thread where your statements conform with these traits.

That is a personal attack due to having nothing else left to defend own position. It is rather pathetic and disappointing that this kind of behavior and personal attacks are allowed here.

I proved you to be an expert in mainstream media figures and media shows, including Borat, and this attack is the result of that.

 

[aphh]

Now, please take a look at these anaglyphs http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11-Anaglyphs.html and explain exactly how they doctored the parallax.

As far as I know, there were no stereo imaging devices on Apollo 11 other than for close-up imaging of 3 x 3 inch objects. Without stereo information you can not know the distances or sizes of objects, hence you could derive anaglyph from Borat and it wouldn't have the required information to tell that this Kazakhstani reporter is a fake.

Or take a look at the high res scans located here http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html .. And that's just Apollo 11.

There were no stereo imaging devices for vistas or panoramas on Apollo 11. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/ ... otography/

If I were so inclined I'm pretty sure that a couple of days of correlating photos from different angles of terrain features relative to the lander would pretty definitively show that the "studio" in which the images were "doctored" would have to be several square miles in size, with a complete terrain and a billion million lumen light source capable of lighting it all evenly.

The soundstage doesn't have to be really big. If you look at the HBO series From Earth to the Moon from the 90ies, you will notice that the scenes look pretty realistic. I also studied how the lighting was achieved for that show for the moon scenes, it was difficult, but not impossible to create a point source of required wattage and with enough luminosity.

If the stage is produced to progressively scale down and correlate with desired perspective when distance grows, you couldn't tell the difference without stereo imaging, and even then it would be difficult. You know that even stereo movies are produced in studios, don't you?

Shall we try Occams Razor once again?

Let's do that.

 

[CalliArcale]

As far as I know, there were no stereo imaging devices on Apollo 11 other than for close-up imaging of 3 x 3 inch objects. Without stereo information you can not know the distances or sizes of objects, hence you could derive anaglyph from Borat and it wouldn't have the required information to tell that this Kazakhstani reporter is a fake.

There's more than one way to make an anaglyph. A stereo imaging device is nice, a la the stereo "pancams" on the MERs, but not the only way.

One other way was used on the Apollo missions. Interestingly, it is also the same basic method as was used to produce the recent 3D film "Coraline". Most 3D films are shot using a stereo camera -- two lenses, two sets of film (or, if it's digital, two CCDs), displaced by about the distance between an adult human's eyes. But this was not possible for Coraline. Since they were working with miniatures, they had to make sure the stereo images had the right displacement to make the miniatures seem full-sized. That meant having the lenses only a centimeter or so apart. The kinds of cameras they wanted to use cannot be placed that close together; they are too large. The solution they settled upon was to use just one camera, but shoot two images, slightly displaced, instead of one. In order to get a flawless displacement for the millions of frames they'd need to take (and reduce the workload for the animators, who had enough to do already on a film where a day's shoot can reasonably produce 1.5 seconds of film), they built a rig to automatically move the camera exactly the right amount between shots.

It worked beautifully.

The same basic technique has been used many times before, including on the Apollo mission. Rather than bringing a heavy stereo camera, the existing Hassleblad cameras were used. An astronaut would take an image, then carefully move a bit to the right or left, and then take another picture. The same technique was used from orbit; cameras in the Service Module would be set to take two pictures in rapid succession, and the orbital movement of the spacecraft would result in a displacement between these frames, useful for stereoscopic viewing. This variant of the technique has been used from aircraft for decades. (You can do it from any moving vehicle, and if you know the vehicle's velocity and the delay between frames, you can figure out the displacement quite easily.)

BTW, I'm not aware of any stereo devices brought along on Apollo for imaging of "3 x 3 inch objects". Can you elaborate? I thought all of the stereo images were produced using the take-a-picture-then-move-then-take-another-picture method.

 

[CalliArcale]

*mod hat on*
Regarding accusations of misconduct, it would be better to flag the post or complain to a mod via PM, rather than dragging out the conflict here in the thread. But so be it. I think there is a lot of anger and hostility going on, and it's not coming from just one person. I think it is important that people settle down, relax, and try to address the issues raised rather than bringing up new ones. It's probably safe to say that aphh's claims will stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of whether or not he is a conspiracy theorist. By the same token, it is disingenuous to make a dramatic claim and then be coy about what implications this would have beyond the Apollo images. It is fairly reasonable to think that if someone is theorizing about a large conspiracy, they are probably a conspiracy theorist, at least insofar as they theorize about a conspiracy.

All that aside, though, folks, I think we should all take a deep breath, relax ourselves, and try to discuss the Apollo images rather than our personal opinions of one another.
*mod hat off*

 

[damskov]

Now, please take a look at these anaglyphs http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11-Anaglyphs.html and explain exactly how they doctored the parallax.

As far as I know, there were no stereo imaging devices on Apollo 11 other than for close-up imaging of 3 x 3 inch objects. Without stereo information you can not know the distances or sizes of objects, hence you could derive anaglyph from Borat and it wouldn't have the required information to tell that this Kazakhstani reporter is a fake.

As Calli correctly points out, you only need one camera and a bit of time offset to create anaglyphs / stereoscopic images. What you have failed to do and what I'm attempting is to look for evidence of parallax, since it's exceedingly hard to doctor. Parallax isn't *proof* of anything but it's a great indicator that horizons aren't just paintings on a stage.

If you want to analyze images for tampering, you should pick out some of the high resolution images, preferably of the same motifs and from different angles.

 

[origin]

Aphh, you have made two statements that should be backed up with evidence or withdrawn:

1. I proved you [origin] to be an expert in mainstream media figures and media shows, including Borat

2. Wars have started because of fake images

 

[aphh]

Aphh, you have made two statements that should be backed up with evidence or withdrawn:

You used a comedian or some other media figure as a reference. I'm sure there is plenty more of that stuff where that reference came from. You also knew Borat, so I think I have proved my point.

Jagsemash! :lol:

When it comes to false flag missions to start wars, you can go to a history course at the nearest University. The subject does not belong in this thread and I can't educate people on various issues. My time is precious.

 

[aphh]

I think there is a lot of anger and hostility going on, and it's not coming from just one person.

It is known psychological phenomenon, that when provoked and required to think for themselves, people turn hostile and angry. As evidenced so greatly in this thread.

I pointed out that people have based their belief system in this matter on imaginary authority called "officials" and have essentially turned science into religious following, that must not be questioned. That is religion, not science.

Many people in this thread show obvious symptoms of falling a victim to a religious movement. The fanatiscism is obvious.

This is a serious problem in society and hampers potential progress and scientific research. There are even laws that have been made to prevent questioning or studying historical aspects of certain events that are largely based on "official" stories, that somebody once told or wrote.

Not allowing to study history is what Taliban is best known of.

 

[origin]

Aphh, you have made two statements that should be backed up with evidence or withdrawn:

You used a comedian or some other media figure as a reference. I'm sure there is plenty more of that stuff where that reference came from. You also knew Borat, so I think I have proved my point.

So the criteria for being an expert in media is having heard of Borat? I can't argue with that because it is so stupid. I guess we will have to mark this one down as no evidence given.

When it comes to false flag missions to start wars, you can go to a history course at the nearest University. The subject does not belong in this thread and I can't educate people on various issues. My time is precious.

So you have no data to back up your claim that doctored photographs have started wars - what a shock. If your time is precious why do you waste it on silly conspiracies.

 

[aphh]

So you have no data to back up your claim that doctored photographs have started wars - what a shock. If your time is precious why do you waste it on silly conspiracies.

Start educating yourself and spend less time with silly media is my advice to you.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I too would like to see some support for the assertoin that doctored photos have started wars.

However (MOD HAT ON***) let's try and stick to the topic of the allegedly doctored photos as close as we can, OK? Thanx

Since the "starting wars" accusation was brought up before my request, I'd like to see a response....

 

[MeteorWayne]

So you have no data to back up your claim that doctored photographs have started wars - what a shock. If your time is precious why do you waste it on silly conspiracies.

Start educating yourself and spend less time with silly media is my advice to you.

Start answering reasonable questions would be my advice to you.

 

[aphh]

I too would like to see some support for the assertoin that doctored photos have started wars.

However (MOD HAT ON***) let's try and stick to the topic of the allegedly doctored photos as close as we can, OK? Thanx

Since the "starting wars" accusation was brought up before my request, I'd like to see a response....

Fabricated photos or fabricated events are essentially the same thing. You will find plenty of examples of fabricated events used to start a war, the Winter War in December 1939 started by Soviets shooting their own positions and claiming that Finns did that.

You yourself have showed symptoms of being a cult follower, so my advice to you is to change your tone and attitude slightly.

 

[aphh]

Start answering reasonable questions would be my advice to you.

I advice you to have a look above, in that post you will find more advice from me to you.

 

[origin]

Fabricated photos or fabricated events are essentially the same thing.

They are?????

With that astonishing statement - I am out of the bickering because it is clearly pointless. I will not 'rise to the bait' again.

 

[netarch]

aphh,

I've read basically the entire thread (both of them, actually!), and there's one thing I haven't seen yet. And I do have to admit - the photos you originally posted actually did look faked to me. So I agree with you on that point - there is something odd about them. However, I'm an engineer - not a physicist, and certainly not a photography expert, although I do know much more, I believe, than the average snapshot taker.

The monitor I'm viewing these on is only 1440x900 pixels, and it's a laptop backlit LCD display - not the best thing for digital photo analysis, I believe. However, one thing you did not provide (that I saw, at least), is a link to the NASA site where you obtained the digitized high-resolution scans from which you excerpted your posted images. While we can't see the original Hasselblad/Kodak film negatives, surely you used first-generation digital scans to do your analysis, right? Can you post a link to the originals you used to perform your analysis? An online NASA digital photo archive, perhaps?

And I'm a bit further confused. First you said you were a composite artist for broadcast television, then later you said you were a photo analysis expert. Skeptics of your theories here reading this thread would pounce on that inconsistency, so how about explaining it, nipping it in the bud, so to speak? I'd think that qualifications for one don't necessarily equate as qualifications for the other.

I asked this in another thread, and I'll ask it again here because I think it's relevant: What's the incentive, the reasoning, to explain why individuals within NASA would promulgate purposely manipulating images. What's the economic payback? What's the gain?

Finally, at the risk of starting another off-topic offshoot: I'd think that NASA, in an effort to track digital photo originals and prevent "fakery", could embed digital SHA-2 hashes in all their photos, and publish those hashes, much like the online Linux software repositories do. I'd be willing to bet that somewhere some digital camera manufacturers already do that with their high-end professional DSLR cameras. Just embed the hash with the metadata.

 

[JonClarke]

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.

Spo you are introducing another claim? That the Japanese faked the Kaguya images? If so I suggest you start a new thread. After you have justified or retracted your claims here regarding Apollo.

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.

Opitics works the same on the Moon as on the Earth, allowing for the absence of an atmosphere. The same distance brightening can be seen in most images of the lunar surface.

The "40 year old composite mechanism" is an invention of yours to explain somethi9ng you apprently don't understand.

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

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

Clerarly there is nothing as invincible as wilful ignorance.

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.

I am glad you mae a good living from it, but unfortunately that does not seem to have taught you much about the importance of working on originals or on high quality scvans rather than resolution, low quality scans if you wish to show they are fraudulent.

Nor does this seem to have equiped you with any knowledge of foresenic image analysis which can dtermine which images are fake and which area real.

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. [/quote]

Really? A vacuum set kilometres across? With 1/ G? With photogeraphed rocks in it which, when analysed, are of non-terrestrial origin? Coincident with mission profiles involving Saturn launches, Apollo spacecraft orbiting the Moon and landing on the surface, two way conversations with the correct time lag down to the echoes, all monitored by independent observers, both radio and opital across the world, including amateurs? A program involving nearly half a million people in it from many countries, not one of whom has come forward in forty years to say it was a hoax? It is actually the other way round, it would have been easier to send people to the Moon than fake it with that level of self consistent and cross correlated evidence

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.

Again, you have it backwards. Faking something of the scale of the Apollo program and its vast documentary image and physical record is utterly beyond out technology. Occam's razour says that it is far more probable that it actually happened.

I don't need to provide evidence on how the images were taken. That is all a matter of public record. The cameras, films, methods, time, the original positives, subjects, transcripts of the conversations while they were taken are all a matter of public record, and always have been. As are almost all the other aspects of the program. It is also possible to contact the people who took the photos if you want to.

You are one who is making the claim that they are faked. The onus is on you to show this, not me. So far you have not convinced anyone except yourself, and even you are not convinced as you have stated the evidence could be either way.

Not only was I alive during the Apllo program I have met one of the Moon walkers, I know many people who worked on Apollo samples, including the very first, I have handled some of the hardware, met people who designmed some of the experients. I have also met people who worked on the Russian program, including analysing samples, designed the spacecracraft, and touched the hardware.

Claiming this is fake is like claiming the Vietnam war was fake.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Start answering reasonable questions would be my advice to you.

I advice you to have a look above, in that post you will find more advice from me to you.

I advice (sic) you to start spending more time taking moderator advice than giving it.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Fabricated photos or fabricated events are essentially the same thing.

They may be essentially the same thing, but that is not what you said. You clearly steted faked photos started wars. Please give some examples.

You will find plenty of examples of fabricated events used to start a war, the Winter War in December 1939 started by Soviets shooting their own positions and claiming that Finns did that.

No one is arguing that. But the subject of this topic is doctored photos.

You yourself have showed symptoms of being a cult follower, so my advice to you is to change your tone and attitude slightly.

Really testing the waters, eh?