Doctored Moon Landing Photos

[a_lost_packet_]

(Jumping to the end of the line, didn't bother to check the rest of the posts... BUT..)

IT'S A ROCK!

Now, how many questions did that answer? Gonna go back and count for funsies..

(Edit - OK, dangit. There is supposed to be at least one question in these types of threads that requires an answer in the affirmative "IT'S A ROCK!" WHERE IS IT? This is a mandatory requirement! Srsly... What gives? Where has all the Woo gone these days? I demand satisfaction! )

 

[a_lost_packet_]

...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 have a bone spur on my shin that has been there longer than you've been working in the composition industry.

You may have composed live feeds with CG, textboxes, made pretty pictures with flowers or spent 10 years creating lolcat photos on 4chan. I don't care. But, one thing I do know - You don't know what you're talking about in this case. "Image Analysis" is not "looking at pictures" for 10 years.

You haven't posted anything but pure conjecture based on assumptions that run the gambit from mere misunderstanding to just plain... incredible.

You're also a "scientist?" OK, what kind of "scientist" are you? Certainly, no scientist I have ever heard of would make such claims with the quality of evidence you have presented. (This is the part where you put up your bonifides and give everyone the smackdown claiming your Carl Sagan Jr. btw..)

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.

All fake, huh?

Have a nice day Mr. PhotoComp Scientist guy!

 

[MeteorWayne]

a_l_p he is not saying that the moon landings are fake. He is saying that photos taken from the surface thave been altered. You should go back and read the thread
MW

 

[CalliArcale]

Excerpted from two of your posts subsequent to my public advisory:

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

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

*mod hat on*

You've had an interesting response to my instruction for everybody to calm down. Accusing others of being cult followers is not "calming down". It's attempting to score cheap points by riling other people up. It is also a rather callous way of completely dismissing anything another person may have to say. It is not acceptable to respond to reasonable requests for information by accusing others (sometimes generically, sometimes specifically) of being religious fanatics, essentially indicating that their curiosity is nothing more than religious dogma.

Really, it unacceptable to accuse people directly of being cult followers, except possibly in the context of a religious discussion. This is not a religious discussion, and you are clearly doing it with the intention of insulting them and/or discrediting them, not because it is true or even relevant.

Of course, what's really interesting about that is that you are accusing those with questions of being cultists. Yet you are the one in this thread who lacks curiosity, and who is unwilling to question his own views. People notice things like that. I suggest you think about it.

*mod hat off*

 

[origin]

From the OP:

When you realize that composites are presented as the real thing, you have to ask what else is being presented as real, but is in fact fabricated reality?

I for one and I suspect many others are confused on what it is you believe.

Perhaps you could sumarize your thoughts

My take is that you believe the following:

1. The Apollo missions did in fact land on the moon.
2. Some of the photos from the moon are fake.

What I don't know is; do you believe:

All the photos are fake?
The fake photos are composites from actual moon photos?
The fake photos are composites of actual moon photos and photos shot on earth?
All of the fake photos were composites of photos taken on earth?

 

[CalliArcale]

Thank you, origin, for bringing us back to the topic. Maybe we can sort of start over and do this right. ;-)

 

[damskov]

To get this thread back on track, I think we should focus on the OP's original assertion: That the Apollo images have been doctored or changed.

Even though the difficulties involved in manufacturing the images eventually leads to a discussion of motives, I think it's reasonable to begin by looking at the analysis it from a scientific point of view.

1. What techniques could have been used at the time to doctor the images?
2. What techniques could be used to analyse the images? What would their limitations be?
3. What kind of evidence/proof (positive or negative) in the context of the images would merit further investigation?

Now the OP has asserted that (1) might have been done combining real background photos composited with studio photos.

He's answering (2) by looking for seams between foreground and background and changes in contrast that may not fit with the context of the image.

The problem is (3). The OP claims that subtle hints of changes in dark/light and contrast might be evidence of seams/compositing, but no one else in this thread is convinced by that argument. What kind of evidence based on image analysis would change the minds of posters here?

 

[netarch]

Credentials and expertise

I have a bone spur on my shin that has been there longer than you've been working in the composition industry.

You may have composed live feeds with CG, textboxes, made pretty pictures with flowers or spent 10 years creating lolcat photos on 4chan. I don't care. But, one thing I do know - You don't know what you're talking about in this case. "Image Analysis" is not "looking at pictures" for 10 years.

You haven't posted anything but pure conjecture based on assumptions that run the gambit from mere misunderstanding to just plain... incredible.

You're also a "scientist?" OK, what kind of "scientist" are you? Certainly, no scientist I have ever heard of would make such claims with the quality of evidence you have presented. (This is the part where you put up your bonifides and give everyone the smackdown claiming your Carl Sagan Jr. btw..)

...snip...

Have a nice day Mr. PhotoComp Scientist guy!

Heck, packet, I'm still waiting for an answer, too! Is aphh a composite artist? Is he a photo analyst? Is he a scientist? Is he a true renaissance man - expert in many areas? Is he really a she, and I've been wrong to use "he"?

Now, I know this may come off as sexist to some, but is it just me, or are most conspiracy theorists men and not women? (Orly Taitz notwithstanding!)

 

[CalliArcale]

netarch -- this is a bit OT, but I find that conspiracy theories are pretty evenly shared between men and women.

The problem is (3). The OP claims that subtle hints of changes in dark/light and contrast might be evidence of seams/compositing, but no one else in this thread is convinced by that argument. What kind of evidence based on image analysis would change the minds of posters here?

I think the biggest thing is that he'd have to demonstrate that these subtle changes of contrast are present in the originals, not just in the compressed versions that are most readily available online, and that they cannot be explained by more benign causes.

 

[aphh]

Re: Credentials and expertise

Heck, packet, I'm still waiting for an answer, too!

I have been waiting for an answer for the whole thread, the simple answer to a question whether some of you were actually there when these images were made.

All of you need to understand, that unless you were there, your testifying is just as good as mine. Except I atleast have something to work with to get started. We can continue heated exchange of testifying, but we are not going to get anywhere.

Jon Clarke, MeteorWayne, origin et. al., were you there when these images were made?

Before I get an answer, it is pretty pointless to continue this exercise.

 

[aphh]

netarch -- this is a bit OT, but I find that conspiracy theories are pretty evenly shared between men and women.

CalliArcale, you insist on calling this thread conspiracy theory, but that is not quite right assertion. It is going too far.

A conspiracy is something that is meant to harm other people without those people knowing of being in harms way. Before we can say that there was a conspiracy, we would need to know the purpose of the photojob (if there even was a photojob, that is).

The purpose of the possible photojob was not necessarily made to harm anybody, but just provide better and more legendary pictures, for example. Therefore it is too early to talk about conspiracy or a conspiracy theory even, so that is why I refuse to get called one.

That you choose to do so may have a purpose, which could be to categorize any attempt to study history as "conspiracy theory" and the one doing the research as "conspiracy theorist". So please let's not jump into conclusions, shall we.

 

[MeteorWayne]

That's just not true. You have a theory that a number of people conspired to doctor the original lunar surface photgraphs. With no evidence, other than it looks like that to you.

That is by definition a conspracy theory. There is no requirement that there be any harmful purpose to meet that definition.

That would be a harmful conspiracy theory No one has suggested that.

That's no "jumping to conclusions", it's a fact.

 

[aphh]

That's just not true. You have a theory that a number of people conspired to doctor the original lunar surface photgraphs. With no evidence, other than it looks like that to you.

That would be deception, not conspiracy. Nobody got hurt or killed in this deception (if there was one), tax money was just spent wrongly. Happens all the time.

Studying Apollo images is not conspiracy theory, it is research in history.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Look up the word conspiracy. You obviously don't understand what it means.

 

[aphh]

Look up the word conspiracy. You obviously don't understand what it means.

So were you there when these images were produced? Simple 'yes' or 'no' will do, and we'll continue from there.

 

[origin]

Look up the word conspiracy. You obviously don't understand what it means.

So were you there when these images were produced? Simple 'yes' or 'no' will do, and we'll continue from there.

I will answer your question - I was not on the moon or if you like, not present when, these photos were made.

Now please answer these questions so that you can make your position better understood. I would think you would want your position understood.

I for one and I suspect many others are confused on what it is you believe.

Perhaps you could sumarize your thoughts

My take is that you believe the following:

1. The Apollo missions did in fact land on the moon.
2. Some of the photos from the moon are fake.

What I don't know is; do you believe:

All the photos are fake?
The fake photos are composites from actual moon photos?
The fake photos are composites of actual moon photos and photos shot on earth?
All of the fake photos were composites of photos taken on earth?

 

[CalliArcale]

CalliArcale, you insist on calling this thread conspiracy theory, but that is not quite right assertion. It is going too far.

A conspiracy is something that is meant to harm other people without those people knowing of being in harms way. Before we can say that there was a conspiracy, we would need to know the purpose of the photojob (if there even was a photojob, that is).

First off, I wasn't the one who called you a conspiracy theorist, although I did comment earlier that not all conspiracy theorists are men.

More importantly, a conspiracy doesn't have tobe just a conspiracy to cause harm. A conspiracy is any surreptitious collusion between individuals or organizations to achieve some goal that they cannot achieve on their own. They can be formed for a noble purpose or an ignoble one, and in fact, I suspect that noble ones are more common. (The Watergate conspirators probably thought they were doing something good, for instance, and the people who tried to assassinate Hitler with the briefcase bomb *definitely* felt they were doing good with their conspiracy.) In the common usage, "conspiracy" usually connotes secrecy, but this is not an absolute requirement for the technical definition.

If I am not mistaken, you are alleging that -- for reasons unknown, possibly noble and possibly not -- elements within NASA secretly conspired to modify certain images. Is this correct?

Note: it is absolutely true that NASA does process images before release. More notable examples include false-color composites (produced for scientific purposes, because the false color makes it easier for the eye to pick out patterns), and collages of multiple frames to obtain a panoramic image. I get the feeling this isn't what you're referring to, though. You're referring to images which weren't just cleaned up but actually fabricated. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[aphh]

More importantly, a conspiracy doesn't have tobe just a conspiracy to cause harm. A conspiracy is any surreptitious collusion between individuals or organizations to achieve some goal that they cannot achieve on their own. They can be formed for a noble purpose or an ignoble one, and in fact, I suspect that noble ones are more common. (The Watergate conspirators probably thought they were doing something good, for instance, and the people who tried to assassinate Hitler with the briefcase bomb *definitely* felt they were doing good with their conspiracy.) In the common usage, "conspiracy" usually connotes secrecy, but this is not an absolute requirement for the technical definition.

I am not an expert in semantics, it is not my field of study, but I understand the word 'conspiracy' to automatically have an element of sinister in it. If somebody improves photos even by fabricating photos of events that actually took place, I would consider it deception at most. But like I said, I'm not the expert in linquistic matters.

If I am not mistaken, you are alleging that -- for reasons unknown, possibly noble and possibly not -- elements within NASA secretly conspired to modify certain images. Is this correct?

True, but it is the images themselves that called for research. Not just a gut instinct, that a government agency misusing taxpayers' money automatically has to be involved in some heinous activity.

I am shocked and apalled by the attitude received by all this. To me this is activity to smear and categorize history research as conspiracy theory. I have seen similar attitude on other public messageboards, but I didn't realize no place is safe from it.

Note: it is absolutely true that NASA does process images before release. More notable examples include false-color composites (produced for scientific purposes, because the false color makes it easier for the eye to pick out patterns), and collages of multiple frames to obtain a panoramic image. I get the feeling this isn't what you're referring to, though. You're referring to images which weren't just cleaned up but actually fabricated. Am I understanding you correctly?

Like I said, the images caught my eye that started this, not the backbone insisting that any government activity has to be criminal minded and laundry of tax money into pockets of some corrupt officials. I can not prove anything except no person here has the better knowledge of how these images were created and processed.

Information like who took the film canisters from the astronauts, who developed the films etc. Is this information readily available?

 

[MeteorWayne]

I am not an expert in semantics, it is not my field of study, but I understand the word 'conspiracy' to automatically have an element of sinister in it.

Bingo, you are incorrect. That is why I suggested you look up the word!!

 

[Wellington1114]

Aph in your opinion, why were the moon photos doctered (assuming they are of course)?

What im getting from this is your intentions were based on an idea that you already had in your mind, involving a conspiracy and fake photographs. Then when they mentioned conspiracy you became defensive and started throwing cult and religious accusations around.


So why do you think the photos would be faked?

 

[netarch]

First off, I wasn't the one who called you a conspiracy theorist, although I did comment earlier that not all conspiracy theorists are men.

...snip...

If I am not mistaken, you are alleging that -- for reasons unknown, possibly noble and possibly not -- elements within NASA secretly conspired to modify certain images. Is this correct?

Note: it is absolutely true that NASA does process images before release. More notable examples include false-color composites (produced for scientific purposes, because the false color makes it easier for the eye to pick out patterns), and collages of multiple frames to obtain a panoramic image. I get the feeling this isn't what you're referring to, though. You're referring to images which weren't just cleaned up but actually fabricated. Am I understanding you correctly?

Calli, aphh - how about we go back to square one:

apph - I asked earlier: I didn't see any attribution of where you got the original images you strongly suspect of being faked. Until we know where you got them, then for all we know is that they are indeed fakes - and actually meant to be. Their original source at NASA could be for some internal class, or some instructional material. For all we know, they could be source material from NASA on how to detect doctored photos!

Please, please - show us where you got them so that any experts here can look at the source.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

a_l_p he is not saying that the moon landings are fake. He is saying that photos taken from the surface thave been altered. You should go back and read the thread
MW

Oh, I read it. Read the whole thing just like I said I would

Yup. I read it.

<edit>

I have had second thoughts and have removed the rest of my response.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Just a note in general:

You guys realize he has you by the short and curlies on this one, right?

There is absolutely no evidence to falsify in his claim. He's couching "opinion" as "evidence" and wagging the dog because people will let him. It's a case of holding up a mirror and saying "Look, there's a reflection in there!" then asking to be proven wrong.

The only way to falsify his claim is to get the original first-run images or the negatives and compare them to his by reconstructing them. Good luck with that.

But, until his dying day, he will believe his argument is credible without realizing that it is completely invalid because it has no evidence except for his opinion. A copy of evidence WITHOUT PROVENANCE IS WORTHLESS! I guarantee you that the further this goes, the further both sides will raise the provenance issue. Any evidence presented that appears solid, concrete and ironclad yet does not directly address his proffered evidence by being a first-run photograph or the actual negative will be met with EXACTLY the same claim he has used before in this thread:

They had really good techniques and used the best equipment that was available. That's why it looks so real. But, I'm an uber image-analyst-scientist guy that has trouble with common imaging terminology and concepts and using my powers of superior observation while I was on my lunch break from the TV station, I realized they were all fake. Any comparative analysis submitted to me must have full provenance including the blood type and color of pubic hair of the custodian.

Enjoy the Merry-Go-Round.

(Note: There is ONE way to falsify his claim that may be possible on "teh intrawebz" without originals which yields a fairly good confidence level. There is camera data available for every snapshot taken including, IIRC, direction in relation to the camera. Would have to check on that. By carefully reconstructing each photograph you may be able to compare features in them with known formations present in the latest surface pictures by plotting position, direction, camera focal length, etc.. But, good luck with the hours it would take to do that. After all that work, you'd just get a "But...")

 

[aphh]

You guys realize he has you by the short and curlies on this one, right?

I have won the first round here. I have offered several people a big cup of reality in this thread, when pressing for concrete evidence to back historical claims.

Essentially this is in no way different from pressing evidence from religious people, who easily turn hostile and angry when questioned. The level of testifying gets all the more intense, yet only conceptual evidence is offered. Never anything concrete.

People, look in the mirror and ask yourself a few hard questions, are you religious fundamentalists or scientists? What is the main difference between these two from your perspective? Does a scientist stop asking questions or finding answers when there are none readily available?

I feel sorry it had to get down to this, but I can not be held responsible for anybody else's attitude and behavior.

 

[damskov]

Aphh, if you'd "won", you would have convinced people to at least take your claims seriously. But so far your condescending attitude and lack of response to the issues brought up in this thread by other posters have simply resulted in you dragging yourself firmly into the Hoaxter category, to which no one listens seriously.

I would have enjoyed spending the hours on correlating images and doing the analysis if I had the expectation that some kind of rational dialogue with you (at least on the technical issues) would come up. But looking at your responses so far, I get the impression that you really aren't interested in the technical issues, instead focusing on semantics to "prove" your point.

In other words, discussing with you is a waste of time.